Appellant was charged with acts of misconduct in terms of Section 5.3 of respondent’s Code of Conduct. These were:-
4.3 (XV)
1. Disrespectful conduct
it being allegedthat on or about the 20 August 2014 he wrote and distributed electronic mail addressed to Shinhara – San, copied to PravianKara and blind copied to selected respondent’s employees, in which he made disrespectful reference to Miss Y Gatsi the Human Resources Manager.
4.3 (XVI)
2. Use of abusive or insulting language-
it being alleged that by the same electronic mail, he abused and insulted Y Gatsi by calling her “a monkey, wombless that... More
After filing several unmeritorious applications in this court, which were either dismissed or withdrawn a decree of perpetual silence was issued by this court per CHIKOWERE J on the 11th of February 2019. The applicant was ordered not to institute any action of whatever nature with respect to a certain piece of land situate in the District of Bulawayo known as Stand 14475 Bulawayo Township of Stand 15038 Bulawayo Town Ship measuring 1 600 square metres (hereinafter referred to as “the property”). Applicant was ordered not to issue any court process commencing action, or set down any matter already filed... More
The matter was placed before me as an application for condonation for the late noting of an appeal against the determination of the Respondent’s final Appeal Authority. The application was opposed. After hearing arguments and upon consideration of the record of proceedings I handed down an order dismissing the application. I indicated that the reasons were to follow. I set out hereunder my reasons for the order More
The plaintiff married the defendant on 23 December 2000 at Rusape in terms of the Marriages Act, [Cap 5:11]. The marriages still subsists. They had however commenced living together as husband and wife about two or three years before that date. Their union was blessed with one minor child born on 20 June 1997. At the time plaintiff and defendant started staying together plaintiff had not yet finalized his divorce from a previous marriage. More
This is an application for rescission of judgment. On 29 August 2020 this court handed down a default judgment order against the applicant employee when he failed to show up on the hearing date. Aggrieved by the default order the employee has now approached this court seeking to have that default order set aside. More
The applicants approached this court for a review of the decision of the first respondent to cancel their lease agreement which was issued under the land reform and resettlement programme. More
This is an application for extension of time within which to apply for leave to appeal.After hearing submissions from both parties I reserved judgment More
Appellant worked for Respondent at Beitbridge Border Post. On 12th August 2005 she was charged with misconduct. A hearing was held on 22nd August 2005. She was found guilty and punished by dismissal. She appealed. On 31st August 2005 Respondent’s Appeals Committee heard the matter and dismissed the appeal. Appellant then appealed to this Court. More
The applicant, San He Mining Zimbabwe [Pvt] Ltd [“San He”], has brought a combined application in respect of an arbitral award, on 28 July 2022 by the second respondent, the arbitrator, retired judge, Mr Justice Chinhengo. On the one hand it seeks the setting aside of that portion of the award adverse to it. On the other hand, it seeks the registration of that portion of the award beneficial to it, but as amended. The combined application is said to have been brought in terms of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law [UNCITRAL] Model Law, an annexure to... More
The applicant is a limited liability mining concern duly registered in terms of the company laws of Zimbabwe. The first respondent is the Mining Commissioner for the Midlands Province. He is a public officer and government bureaucrat cited in his official capacity as the authority responsible for issuing mining licences and permits among other responsibilities. The second respondent is the Secretary for Mines and Mining Development. He equally holds public office and is a government functionary. The third respondent is the Minister of Mines and Mining Development. He is cited in his official capacity as the authority responsible charged with... More
The Applicant’s mining blocks were prospected, pegged and registered in May 1964 giving it exclusive mining rights to approximately 3878 hectares of land situate in Mberengwa District. Within the same area, the applicant additionally holds a valid mining claim called Lith 15 (GM8172). For expediency, I will refer to the area to which the applicant lays claim as the Sandawana mining area. In October 1986 the Ministry of Mines reserved the Sandawana Mining area against prospecting. That reservation notice subsisted until 30 September 2022 when it was revoked. Another notice against prospecting in the same area was however issued on... More
This is an application for an anti-dissipation interdict which seeks to bar the first respondent from extracting and removing lithium ore from its mining claim. Apparently, the applicant which has a registered mining claim ‘Lith 15’ (Registration Claim GM 8172 BM) is locked in a serious mining dispute of encroachment with the first respondent which has a registered mining claim ‘Sandawana AV8’ (Registration Number 17332BM). As a result of the encroachment dispute, there is a mining area which is disputed between the two parties which each party claims be its area. More
The applicant was convicted after contest of contravening s89 (1) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23]. She was sentenced to 10 months imprisonment.She appealed against sentence. More
This is an opposed court application seeking a declaratory order in terms of the High Court Act [Chapter 7:06], where the applicant seeks an order confirming the validity of the contract of employment contract which she entered into with the respondent on 5 May 2020. More
The respondent raised a point in limine that the grounds of appeal do not raise questions of law as envisaged by section 98 (10) of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01]. Section 98 (10) provides
“An appeal on a question of law shall lie to the Labour Court from any decision of an arbitrator appointed in terms of this section.”
What constitutes a question of law has been authoritatively answered in numerous cases including Sable Chemical Industries (Pvt) Ltd V Easterbrook 2010 (1) ZLR 342 and Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe v Corrine Granger & Another 2001 ZLR (10 sc. In those... More
