Applicant was employed by respondent on successive one month contracts for the period 9 November 2009 to 12/10. On 4 January applicant entered into an employment contract with Lorimark (Pvt) Ltd and the contract was terminated on 4 February 2011 on allegations of misconduct. Applicant alleged unfair dismissal and referred the matter for resolution. Honourable Arbitrator Matsikidze ruled that respondent was applicant’s employer, not Lorimark (Pvt) Ltd. The issue of unfair dismissal was dealt with by Honourable Arbitrator Mutsinze who ruled that at the time of the termination of contract in February 2011. Applicant’s contract was without limit of time... More
The applicants are husband and wife and the respondents are also husband and wife. On the 27th February 2012, the parties entered into an agreement of sale in terms of which the Applicants sold to Respondents an immovable property ,namely, 2200 square meters of Lot 48, Marlborough Township of Marlborough held under Deed of Transfer number 1187/2003. Due to some challenges with the sale transaction on the 17th June 2016 the respondents sued the applicants in HC 6185/16 seeking an order confirming the cancellation of the agreement of sale and ordering the Applicants to reimburse the purchase price of US$... More
The applicant was dismissed from employment in terms of the Labour Relations Act [Chapter 28:01] as amended. He is alleged to have committed an act inconsistent with the fulfillment of the express or implied conditions of his contract of employment and fraud. More
Before the matter was heard on the merits the respondent raised two preliminary points. The first preliminary point being that the appellant was improperly before the court since he did not exhaust local remedies provided for in the respondent’s Code of Conduct. The second issue being that some of the grounds of appeal are grounds for review and should be struck off. On that basis Counsel for the respondent urged the court to dismiss the appeal. The application for dismissal on the preliminary points was opposed. Counsel for the respondent’s basis of opposing the first preliminary point was that the... More
The applicant filed an urgent chamber application and sought the following relief:
“TERMS OF FINAL ORDER SOUGHT
1. That the reallocation of stand number 32, Muguta Shopping Centre, Epworth to the second, third, fourth respondent or any other person be and is hereby reversed.
2. That the first respondent is ordered to expedite the process of approving the applicant’s building plans.
3. Alternatively that first respondent allocates the applicant another commercial stand of the same size.
4. That first applicant to pay costs of this application on the legal practitioner –client scale. More
Respondent was employed by appellant for five years as an Accountant. She went on maternity leave in January 2013. During the period she was on maternity leave her salary was reduced from $700 to $450. On 6 June 2013 her employment was terminated. Aggrieved, she approached the Ministry of Labour complaining of unfair labour practice in that she was discriminated in the reduction of her salary and was not given notice prior to the termination of her employment. The matter was not settled at conciliation and was subsequently referred to arbitration. More
The parties in this case were engaged in a dispute of salaries. The parties failed to agree on the determination of a new minimum wage for the Industry for the period 1 January 2011 to 30 June 2011. They also failed to agree on a housing allowance for the period 1 January 2011 to 30 June 2011. More
Following an urgent chamber application for stay of execution, the applicant and first respondent had entered into a deed of settlement on 24 May 2016 in which the Applicant (as then first respondent), agreed to stay execution on account that the 1st Respondent (as then Applicant), paid an amount of $40 345.45 owing to it as rentals in monthly instalments of $6000.00 starting 30 May 2016 and thereafter on the 24th day of every new month for a further period of 7 months until the debt was extinguished. More
This is an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against the judgment of this Court that was handed down on the 16 October 2015. This Court in its judgment set aside the arbitral award by Susan Changawa. It nullified the transfer of the appellant to Mahshe Investment and ordered Applicant to reinstate the Respondent’s pension. More
In this matter the marriage between the plaintiff and first defendant was dissolved by a decree of this court on 26 November 2019 in an initial action where the parties were only the plaintiff, first and second defendant. The second defendant had been cited because of allegations of adultery between her and the first defendant. It appears that the issue of adultery damages was resolved out of court through a deed of settlement of 26 November 2019 with second defendant paying ZWL $20 000.00 and the second defendant ceased to be directly involved in the proceedings hence her nonappearance in... More
This is an appeal against part of the judgment of the Labour Court (the court a quo) handed down on 26 January 2018. The appeal is against that part of thejudgmentwhichupheldthe arbitrator’s award granting the respondent’s members an11 percent wageincrease. More
This is an appeal against the decision of the DA who handled the dispute of non payment of terminal benefits to the respondent employees. The background to the matter is that the employees were awarded an 11% wage increment which the employer unsuccessfully challenged all the way to the Supreme Court. Post the Supreme court judgement the employees again approached the DA 0alleging non payment of their terminal benefits. This did not go down well with the applicant. In its view such an approach was tantamount to asking the DA to enforce a Supreme Court order and to issue a... More
In Case No. HC 4174/10, the applicant in this matter filed for the review and setting aside of an arbitral award rendered in arbitration proceedings between the parties. The award was made on 26 May 2010 and the application for review was filed on 21 June 2010. There were delays in confirming and preparing the record of those proceedings for various reasons. The applicant now seeks condonation for the late filing of the arbitral record to enable the review proceedings to continue. More
An integral part of the adjudication process is the exercise of discretion. It is done judiciously. Whim, caprice, impulse, irrationality, excitability, emotion, and all the other negative urges or passions of that nature have no role. There are many instances when the court is called upon to exercise its discretion. But it is mostly in sentencing, in criminal matters, that that function is so pronounced. Ordinarily the doctrine of stare decisisensures that like cases are treated alike. In appropriate situations, a precedent set in one case should be followed in all other subsequent cases of a similar nature. But this... More
The two accused are charged with Murder as defined in s 47 (1) (a) or (b) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23] where it is alleged by the State that on 4 November 2018 and at Magamba Turn-off, Rusape, the two accused in the company of one Lucky, who is still at large, all and each or one or the other of them, unlawfully caused the death of Emmanuel Ngwarati by assaulting him with booted feet and fists and stabbing him with a knife all over the body intending to kill Emmanuel Ngwarati or realising that... More
