Electronic Court judgements

Browse all Court Judgements

This is an application for review in terms of section 92 EE of the Labour Act, (Chapter 28:01) as read with Rule 20 of the Labour Court Rules, 2017. FACTUAL BACKGROUND The applicant was employed by the respondent, PetroZim Line (Pvt) Ltd. The applicant was dismissed from employment and made an application for review under case number LCH/180/24, challenging his dismissal. The review was upheld, and the respondent was ordered to convene a fresh disciplinary hearing within 60 days. The respondent failed to conduct the hearing within the timeframe ordered by the Court, and the applicant approached the Cou More

The Applicant, an employee of the Respondent, PetroZim Line (Pvt) Ltd, was dismissed from employment following a disciplinary hearing on June 21, 2022. The Applicant successfully challenged the process leading to his dismissal in a review application under case reference LC/H/534/22. This court effectively set aside the initial disciplinary proceedings on grounds of procedural irregularities. The Respondent was directed to convene a hearing denovo within 60 days of the court order, pending which the Applicant was to revert to suspension with salary and benefits. On July 4, 2024, the Respondent issued a notice of a fresh disciplinary hearing scheduled for... 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

The appellants worked for the respondent in Harare on fixed term contracts. The 1st appellant’s contract terminated presumably by effluxion of time. The 2nd appellant was terminated on grounds of misconduct. Both appellants then claimed they are entitled to cash in lieu of leave days not taken. The matter went for conciliation. The parties failed to settle whereupon the matter was referred to arbitration. On 25 August 2014 Arbitrator R E Nhiwatiwa issued an arbitration award. He dismissed the appellants’ claims “for lack of merit.” Thereafter the appellants appealed to this Court against the award. The respondent opposed the appeal. More

1. This is an application brought by the applicant for my recusal from hearing this matter. Before the applicant argued his application for recusal, I placed the following facts on record: that I only knew Mr Jaricha counsel for the respondent only as a legal practitioner appearing before this court. I have never met him outside court and I do not socialise with him. In his brief submissions Mr Jaricha confirmed this position, i.e. that I have never met him outside court and that I do not socialise with him. More

This is an application for condonation for late noting of an appeal. The application is almost three years out of time. A reading of the papers filed for the application would lead one to think that infact it is an application for review if one does not read the notice. The papers do not deal with the main issues that such an application must address. Only the reason for delay is addressed. Nevertheless the court was generous enough not to dismiss the application out of hand but pointed to the applicant the issues that needed to be addressed. The application... More

This is an application for review. The applicants were employees of the respondent. They were charged under section 4(b) of the Statutory Instrument 15 of 2006 [SI 15 of 2006] (the national code). They sought to be represented by an official from Zimbabwe Educational Scientific Social Cultural Workers Union (ZESSCWU). The Chairperson of the disciplinary committee ruled that ZESSCWU was not a registered trade union and the official could not represent the applicants. The applicants were grieved by this decision and upon advise from their would be representative, they abandoned the proceedings. The hearing proceeded in their absence and they... More

The appeal was noted as against the decision of the Acting Secretary for Education, Sport, Art and Culture delivered on the 4th of January, 2012. More

The plaintiff is currently the acting headmaster of Tsatsi High School in Domboshava but his homestead, where his wife still resides, (their children, the oldest of which is 25 with the youngest aged 10 years, having moved out or are attending school), is at Majuru line in Goromonzi. At the material time, he was the headmaster of Mkombami High School in Goromonzi, a post he was forced to vacate on 19 September 2011 following disturbances and accusations levelled against him. More

It seems to me quite unacceptable if not completely dishonorable for a litigant who has the benefit of legal counsel to repeatedly approach the same court on the same facts and in respect of the same cause of action, seeking almost the same relief which has previously not found favour with the court, a court which has pronounced itself very clearly on the matter. Not once, not twice but thrice, this court has expressed the view that the plaintiff’s claim that he purchased stand 1092 Umtali Township, also known as No 26 Jameson Road Mutare (the property) and that it... More

The first respondent obtained an order under case number HC 10809/13 to eject the second respondent and all those claiming occupation of stand 1092 Umtali Township, through him. The first respondent avers that the applicant occupies the stand through the second respondent and is therefore liable to be ejected in terms of the eviction order obtained by the first respondent against the second respondent. More

This appeal was dealt with on the record in terms of section 89 (2) (a)(i) of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01]. More

: The plaintiff issued summons out of this court seeking a decree of divorce and other ancillary relief. The facts of this matter are not in dispute and may be summarized as follows. The plaintiff and defendant are husband and wife. They married in terms of the Marriages Act [Cap 5:11] on 24 August 1996. They have one minor child a little boy aged 11. In 2008 the parties separated due to marital differences. They have not lived together as husband and wife since that time. They are both certain that the marriage has broken down to such an extent... More

This is an application for condonation of late noting of an appeal and extension of time to note an appeal. The applicant is a former member of the Zimbabwe Republic Police. He was a constable. Following allegations of misconduct, he was charged and was tried before a single officer. He was found liable and sentenced to 7 days imprisonment at Fairbridge Detention Barrack. He did not appeal against the decision. On 30 December 2016, the applicant was discharged from service after a board of suitability made recommendations to the first respondent for his dismissal. The applicant noted an appeal to... More