The Respondent was employed by the Appellant as a Flight Lines Engineer. He was employed on the basis of a fixed term contract from the 1st of October 2021 to the 30th of September, 2024. The Respondent’s employment was terminated on the 31st of January, 2023. The Respondent being aggrieved by a perceived unlawful termination referred the dispute to a Labour Officer. The matter was set down for conciliation. The parties however failed to reach conciliation. A Certificate of No Settlement was issued although it does not form part of the record. The Labour Officer then proceeded to hear oral... More
The applicant is the holder of title of a certain piece of land in the District of Salisbury Called Stand 45A Ardbennie Industrial Township(hereinafter referred to as “the property”). On 27 September 2016, applicant and the respondent entered into an agreement of sale in respect of the property. More
This is an appeal against the decision of the Magistrates Court sitting at Chiredzi wherein it granted respondent’s application for spoliation in respect of a piece of land situate in the Lowveld district of Chiredzi, namely subdivision 111 of Mkwasine Central, Chiredzi (“the piece of land’). The appellant attacks the decision of the court a quo on two broad grounds namely that it (i.e. court a quo) ought to have declined to entertain the application for spoliation as essentially the same dispute pitting the same parties was pending in a different court case. The argument therefore is that the court... More
This is a matter in which I stayed my decision pending the determination of an appeal in case number CA197/07. The appeal was determined on 5 October 2011 but the respondent in this case promptly noted an appeal with the Supreme Court against the judgment of HLATSHWAYO J. The parties submitted that the determination of the matter again be stayed pending the decision of the Supreme Court. By letter dated 29 October 2012 the parties advised that the appeal before the Supreme Court had been removed from the roll by consent of both parties. Thus, as there is no longer... More
This is an appeal against an arbitral award handed down on 27 May 2013 the operative part of which reads as follows;
“That it be, and is hereby, ordered that the dispute be remitted back to the designated agent of the Employment Council for the Undertaking of Harare Municipality who is seized with matter for disposal.” More
The Appellants in this case engaged in a collective job action.
The employer brought disciplinary proceedings against the Appellants and found them guilty and dismissed then. They appealed against the decision to dismiss them but were unsuccessful before the Designated Agent of the National Employment Council for the Motor Industry. More
This is an application for confirmation of a draft ruling by a Labour officer, the applicant.
The 2nd respondent, hereinafter referred to as the employee was employed by the Zimbabwe Revenue Authority, the 1st respondent (ZIMRA).
The background facts
These are common cause. I will just include them here for completeness. More
CORRIGENDUM
After the release of the order in this case Order No LC/H/ORD/376/19 it has been noted that paragraph 3 of that order erroneously refers to $12904 instead of $1204. The order is accordingly corrected to read $1204 in paragraph 3 instead of $12904. More
After the release of the order in this case Order No LC/H/ORD/376/19 it has been noted that paragraph 3 of that order erroneously refers to $12904 instead of $1204. The order is accordingly corrected to read $1204 in paragraph 3 instead of $12904. More
Sometime in February 2012, the plaintiff and the defendant entered into a written agreement of sale in terms of which the defendant sold to the plaintiff an undivided share representing shop number F12, which was to be constructed on a property known as Subdivision B and C of Subdivision C of Lot 15 Block C of Avondale, Harare. The negotiations involved an offer of a smaller shop valued at US$35 000 and shares with a value of US$35 000. Both proposals were apparently rejected by the purchaser.
According to the plaintiff, the defendant breached the agreement in that it failed... More
This is a court application by 163 applicants seeking a declaratory order in the following terms:
“IT IS ORDERED AS FOLLOWS:
1. It is declared that the agreements of sale which were entered into between the applicants and the 1st respondent represented by the 2nd respondent be and are hereby held to be valid.
2. The 1st respondent pays costs of this application on a legal practitioner and client scale.” More
This is an application brought on an urgent basis for what can be loosely termed as an “anti-dissipation” interdict. The applicant seeks to have her estranged husband (the first respondent) barred from disposing of any of the assets acquired by the two of them during the currency of their union pending the outcome of an action which she has since mounted for an equitable sharing of those assets. This latter claim was brought under case number HCMSF 80/24. More
The 3 applicantsthrough an urgent chamber application seek interim relief for all mining operations at Golden Hill Mine Mashavato be suspended barred or prohibited. Further that in pursuance of the above that applicants are authorised to hire and deploy at the said mine security guards to ensure compliance with the order suspending barring or suspending mining operations at the said mine. More
