On 10 August 2012 after hearing counsel for the applicant and the first respondent I granted the following provisional order;
“INTERIM RELIEF GRANTED
Pending return date the applicant is granted the following:-
1. 1st respondent or his assignee be and is hereby ordered to stop forthwith quarrying activities on the applicant’s farm namely Coburn 27A till finalisation of the matter on the return date.
2. 2nd respondent or his assignee be and is hereby barred from authorising the 1st respondent from carrying out quarrying activities on the applicant’s farm namely Coburn 27A till finalisation of this matter on the return... More
The appellant was employed as a truck driver from 2008 until 2 October 2013 when he was dismissed. He then noted an appeal to this court.
The matter began with a letter that was handed to the respondent’s human resources department. The court was not favoured with a copy of the letter. The letter was purported to have been authored by some drivers. They set out certain grievances relating to starting times and finishing time. The appellant was one of the signatories. The appellant was a member of the worker’s committee.
After management received the letter the appellant was charged... More
Applicant applied to this Court for the review of the decision by respondents’ Disciplinary Committee to conclude his hearing without hearing his evidence. The application was made in terms of Section 89(1)1d of the Labour Act Chapter 28:01. Respondents opposed the application. More
At the onset of oral argument in this matter respondents raised 2 points in limine which applicant opposed. Thes points are:
1. That the application was filed prematurely:
2. That applicant does not have the right to file the application for review More
Applicant applied to this Court for the review of the determination by Respondent’s appeals committee which dismissed his appeal against the decision of the disciplinary committee. The application was made in terms of Section 92EE of the Labour Act Chapter 28:01 as read with Rule 20 of the Labour Court Rules S.I. 150/17. More
The appellants worked for the respondent in Harare on fixed term contracts. The 1st appellant’s contract terminated presumably by effluxion of time. The 2nd appellant was terminated on grounds of misconduct. Both appellants then claimed they are entitled to cash in lieu of leave days not taken. The matter went for conciliation. The parties failed to settle whereupon the matter was referred to arbitration. On 25 August 2014 Arbitrator R E Nhiwatiwa issued an arbitration award. He dismissed the appellants’ claims “for lack of merit.” Thereafter the appellants appealed to this Court against the award. The respondent opposed the appeal. More
1. This is an application brought by the applicant for my recusal from hearing this matter. Before the applicant argued his application for recusal, I placed the following facts on record: that I only knew Mr Jaricha counsel for the respondent only as a legal practitioner appearing before this court. I have never met him outside court and I do not socialise with him. In his brief submissions Mr Jaricha confirmed this position, i.e. that I have never met him outside court and that I do not socialise with him. More
This is an application for condonation for late noting of an appeal. The application is almost three years out of time. A reading of the papers filed for the application would lead one to think that infact it is an application for review if one does not read the notice. The papers do not deal with the main issues that such an application must address. Only the reason for delay is addressed. Nevertheless the court was generous enough not to dismiss the application out of hand but pointed to the applicant the issues that needed to be addressed. The application... More
This is an application for review.
The applicants were employees of the respondent. They were charged under section 4(b) of the Statutory Instrument 15 of 2006 [SI 15 of 2006] (the national code).
They sought to be represented by an official from Zimbabwe Educational Scientific Social Cultural Workers Union (ZESSCWU). The Chairperson of the disciplinary committee ruled that ZESSCWU was not a registered trade union and the official could not represent the applicants. The applicants were grieved by this decision and upon advise from their would be representative, they abandoned the proceedings. The hearing proceeded in their absence and they... More
The plaintiff is currently the acting headmaster of Tsatsi High School in Domboshava but his homestead, where his wife still resides, (their children, the oldest of which is 25 with the youngest aged 10 years, having moved out or are attending school), is at Majuru line in Goromonzi. At the material time, he was the headmaster of Mkombami High School in Goromonzi, a post he was forced to vacate on 19 September 2011 following disturbances and accusations levelled against him. More
It seems to me quite unacceptable if not completely dishonorable for a litigant who has the benefit of legal counsel to repeatedly approach the same court on the same facts and in respect of the same cause of action, seeking almost the same relief which has previously not found favour with the court, a court which has pronounced itself very clearly on the matter. Not once, not twice but thrice, this court has expressed the view that the plaintiff’s claim that he purchased stand 1092 Umtali Township, also known as No 26 Jameson Road Mutare (the property) and that it... More
The first respondent obtained an order under case number HC 10809/13 to eject the second respondent and all those claiming occupation of stand 1092 Umtali Township, through him. The first respondent avers that the applicant occupies the stand through the second respondent and is therefore liable to be ejected in terms of the eviction order obtained by the first respondent against the second respondent. More
