This is an urgent chamber application for stay of execution in terms of r 73 of the Supreme Court Rules 2018 as read with Rule 244 of the High Court Rules, 1971. More
On 5 October 2017 I dismissed an urgent application filed under Case No. HC 101/10 for want of prosecution and gave my oral reasons for doing so. I indicated that I would give written reasons for doing so for a fuller appreciation by the parties of those oral reasons. More
The appellants were formerly employed by Fleximail until on or about August 2011 when they were transferred to Chloride Zimbabwe. Fleximail is a division of Art Corporation, as is Chloride Zimbabwe whose proper citation is Art Corporation Limited t/a Chloride Zimbabwe.
Appellants were moved from one division of the same company to another division. Noteworthy is that they moved from the paper industry to the battery industry. They were placed into grades as close as possible to those they had occupied in the paper industry. At the time of transfer, the appellants’ remuneration was above that in the battery industry. More
This is an appeal against the decision on an arbitrator.
The respondents are section managers at one of the appellant’s branches, the Kariba Branch. During the course of their employment the appellants raised complaints which were not resolved to their satisfaction by the appellant. The grievances were referred to a labour officer when conciliation failed the matter was subsequently referred to arbitration. More
At the hearing of this matter, counsel for respondent made an oral application for condonation of late filing of the notice of response and late service of the notice of response on the appellant. I dismissed the application and gave the following reasons;
1. Respondent was a self actor at the inception of this matter. He got legal representation in January 2016.
2. The notice of response was filed out of time. Counsel for respondent indicated that on realising that the notice of response had not been served on the appellant, they caused it to be served on 21 January... More
On 19 June 2015 at Harare, Arbitrator M Dangarembizi made an arbitration award. He dismissed appellants’ claims of underpayment by their employer, the respondent. Appellants then appealed to this court against the award. More
This judgment is for three matters which were heard separately but with similar facts. The Respondents were employed by the Appellant. Allegations are that they were jointly charged and convicted of theft. A penalty of dismissal was imposed. Respondents appealed to the NEC for the Plastics Manufacturing Industry. The NEC determined the matters individually resulting in three determinations being issued nullifying the dismissal of the Respondents and reinstating them without loss of salary and benefits. Appellant was aggrieved and appealed against each of the determinations. Three records were opened in this Court. More
The matter before me is an application for absolution from the instance at the close of the plaintiff’s case. The brief facts of the case are as follows. The plaintiff seeks payment of the Zimbabwean dollar equivalent of US$607, 453, 35 calculated at the interbank rate prevailing as at the date of payment. After initial denial of liability by the defendant, the only issue that remained for trial was couched in the joint pre-trial conference minute as follows, “Whether or not the obligations that gave rise to this action were caused before or after 22nd February 2019”. The date is... More
Appellants were former employees of the Central African Power Corporation (CAPCO). They were transferred to the Zimbabwe Electricity Supply Authority (ZESA) as security guards. After the transfer they worked until January 2012 when they were retired in terms of the ZESA Pension Fund Rules. Appellants disputed their retirement arguing that the applicable pension rules were the CAPCO Pension Fund Rules. In terms of the ZESA Pension Fund Rules the retirement age is 60 years while in terms of the CAPCO Pension Fund Rules it is 65 years. More
The appeal is noted against the determination handed down on 24 March, 2011 by Respondent’s Disciplinary Committee which found the Appellant guilty of reselling tickets and consequently imposed a dismissal penalty.
The Appellant was employed by the Respondent as a conductor. The Respondent’s case was that on the 5th of December 2010 a Risk Controller, MrMutizwa upon checking tickets found 4 passengers with resold tickets in a bus Appellant wasoperating as Conductor. The Appellant was suspended verbally on the same day 5th of December, 2010. He was then notified on 24th March, 2011 of the date of Disciplinary Hearing, which... More
This is an appeal against the whole judgment of the Labour Court which dismissed an appeal against an Arbitral award issued in the respondents’ favour. More
This is an application by a labour officer for confirmation of his ruling on a matter between the respondents. It is in terms of section 93 (5a) (a) and (b) of the Labour Act Chapter 28:01 (the Act). More
This is an application for an order in terms of section 93 (5a) (a) and (b) of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01] (the Act).
The 1st and 2nd respondent shall be referred to as the employer and the employee respectively.
The brief facts are that a dispute arose between the parties and the matter was referred for conciliation before the applicant, the parties failed to be reconciled and a certificate of no settlement was issued. This was on 18 June 2018.
Thereafter, the parties and the applicant agreed on time lines within which both parties would file their written submissions.... More
At the commencement of the proceedings, Respondent’s Counsel informed the Court that he had been engaged the previous day and had thus not been able to file Heads of Argument. The Court indicated that the matter would proceed. More
