Samson Njanina filed the matter, before this court, with the Registrar of the Electoral Court on the 18th July 2008. ZANU PF and MDC T Political parties contested the matter by filing notices of opposition. The 1st respondent did not respond. More
This is an appeal against an arbitral award handed down on 15 May 2015, wherein the arbitrator dismissed the appellant’s claim on the basis that the matter was not properly before her. More
Applicant’s application is titled “Application for Adjudication Process in terms of section 93 (7) (ii) as read with section 89 (2) ( c) of the Labour Act, (Chapter 28:01) and Labour Court Rules, 2017 More
By reason of an allegation by the applicant of a breach of his fundamental right enshrined in s 56(1) of the Constitution, this application gained direct access to the Constitutional Court (“the Court”) through the front door, which is s 85 (1) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (No. 20) Act 2013 (“the Constitution”). More
The appellant has approached this Court in terms of Rule 67 of the Rules of this Court which rule must be read with s 121 of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act [Chapter 9:07]. More
Applicant was employed by the Respondent. He was charged for misconduct and was found guilty and was dismissed from employment. On 2 October 2013 Applicant noted an appeal in this Court. The appeal was opposed on 15 October 2013 Applicant failed to file heads of argument within the stipulated time. Respondent applied for and was granted an order in terms of Rule 19 3 (a) of the Labour Court Rules SI 59/06. More
Appeal against refusal of bail pending appeal
The applicants who face charges of fraud were denied bail by the magistrate’s court. In order to reverse the findings of the lower court it is trite that the misdirection complained of must appear from the record of proceedings in theexercise by the court ofitsdiscretion. See Barrows& Another v Chimponda 1991 (1) ZLR 58 (S) and Aitken & Anorv Attorney General 1992 (1) ZLR 249(S). More
The first respondent is a registered trade union for the baking industry. The first and the second applicants were in 2015 employed in the baking industry and were members of the first respondent. They were elected into the national executive of the first respondent as President and National Treasurer respectively at the first respondent’s National Congress held between 19 and 21 February 2015. Their tenure of office was to expire in 2020. Their employment in the industry was terminated by their respective employers in the same year, that is in 2015. On 24 September 2016, the Bakery Industry Workers Union... More
The applicant brings an application to compel the return of his biscuit making equipment which is in the possession of the first and second respondents. More
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
