The accused is alleged to have stabbed his wife to death with a kitchen knife after having accused her of infidelity. He thereafter attempted to commit suicide by stabbing himself with the murder weapon. More
KABASA J: This is an appeal against the refusal by the court a quo to grant the appellant bail on the basis of changed circumstances.
The background to the matter is this: The appellant was arrested in October 2020 on allegations of theft as defined in section 113 (2) (a) and fraud as defined in section 136 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act, Chapter 9:23. More
After a fully contested trial the appellant was convicted of one count of fraud in contravention of section 136 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23], and the second count for contravening s 60 (A) (3) (b) of the ZESA Act. More
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
