Applicant applied to this court for the condonation of his delay in filing a review application. Respondent opposed the application for condonation I shall deal with the matter under sub – titles “Delay” and “Prospects.” More
On the 14th August 2019 at Harare, Arbitrator T.C, Sengwe issued an award. He ordered Respondent to pay Appellant an amount of ZWL $62,700-00 in respect of backpay and damages for loss of employment. Appellant then appealed to this Court against the award. Respondent opposed the appeal. The grounds of appeal were two-fold. I shall deal with the grounds ad seriatim. More
This is an application for rescission of an order. It is in terms of section 92C (1) (b) of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01] (the Act). The reason for the application is that the order was void. More
The appellant was employed by the respondent as a Vehicle Sales Manager on 2 June 2014. On 4 December 2014, he was charged with gross incompetence or inefficiency in the performance of his work in terms of s 4(f) of the Labour (National Employment Code) Regulations, 2006 (SI 15/06) also referred to as the National Code. A disciplinary hearing was held and the Hearing Officer found the appellant guilty and his contract of employment was terminated. The appellant appealed the decision of the Hearing Officer to the Chief Operations Officer who did not respond to the appeal. The appellant had... More
DUBE-BANDA J: This application for condonation for the late filing of an application for review came before me in the unopposed motion court. Although served with this application, 1st and 2nd respondent did not file a notice of opposition. Thus this matter was set-down in the unopposed motion court. The applicant seeks the following relief:
1. Condonation and extension of time within which to file review proceedings in the High Court be and is here by granted.
2. Applicant to file review proceedings in the High Court within 10 days of this order. More
Applicant applied to this Court for rescission of judgment in term of Section 92C (1)(a) of the Labour Act Chapter 28:01 as read with Rule 40 of the Labour Court Rules, 2017. Respondent opposed the application. More
The applicant was charged with rape of two 11 year old girls. The date when the rape took place could not be determined accurately as neither of the complainants had made a timeous report to any adult who would have been expected to advise the complainants to make a report to the police.
The applicant was convicted of the rape allegations after the court found the two complainants to be credible witness. A reading of the magistrate’s judgment illustrates an eloquent alertness to the risks of attendant on the evidence of young children. The accused’s defence was a bare denial... More
This is an appeal against the decision of the respondent’s disciplinary authority which found appellant guilty and penalised him with dismissal following allegations of wilful
disobedience to a lawful order and conduct inconsistent with the conditions of his employment. More
1. This is an appeal against the judgment of the employer in which the appellant was convicted of three acts of breaching section 4(a) of the Labour (National Employment Code of Conduct) Regulations, S.I. 15 of 2006. More
On 12 July 2019 this court partially upheld an appeal by the applicant against the Respondent.
On 29 July 2019 the applicant filed an application for leave to appeal.
His draft notice of appeal to the Supreme Court raises four grounds of appeal and in brief these are that;
1. The court erred in law in upholding the verdict of the disciplinary committee when it had made a finding that the applicant was a non-managerial employee.
2. The disciplinary proceedings had been vitiated by the charging of the applicant as a managerial employee.
3. The court erred in making a... More
In this matter the applicant seeks a spoliation order against the respondent in respect of a Mazda Familia motor vehicle registration number ABD 8958 alleging that he was, until 12 June 2012, in possession of the said motor vehicle. On that date, the respondent dispossessed him of the vehicle using wrongful means. More
This is an appeal made in terms of s 121(2)(b) of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act, [Cap 9:07] against the refusal by the Magistrate sitting at Beit bridge on 16th March 2022 to grant all the sixteen (16) appellants bail pending trial.
All the 16 appellants were jointly charged with other two appellants Tichareva Nyaku and Priscila Gosa who were also denied bail pending appeal by the same court a quo. These two filed a separate appeal to this court on CRB 126 – 27/22 and the appeal was not opposed by the State (the respondent). Consequently they were... More
This is an application for summary judgment brought in terms of Order 10 rule 64 of the High Court rules, 1971 (the rules). It stems from a long running dispute over the continued occupation of a farm which has since been acquired by the state by its previous owner (or more accurately by those that claim through him). The applicant avers that the respondents have no bona fide defence to his claim for eviction in case number HC 379/2019 and that appearance to defend was entered only for purposes of delay. More
I have had the privilege of hearing counsel in this matter both on the question of law and the facts relating to this case. I propose to adopt a wholistic approach.
The question of law
It is the settled legal position that in order to be granted interim interdict the applicant must satisfy the following requirements:
a) that the right which has prompted the applicant to make the application and which right they seek to protect is clear or if not clear is prima facie established though open to some doubt;
b) that if the right is only prima facie... More
