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
In this matter the applicant seeks a spoliation order against the respondent in respect of a Mazda Familia motor vehicle registration number ABD 8958 alleging that he was, until 12 June 2012, in possession of the said motor vehicle. On that date, the respondent dispossessed him of the vehicle using wrongful means. More
This is an appeal made in terms of s 121(2)(b) of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act, [Cap 9:07] against the refusal by the Magistrate sitting at Beit bridge on 16th March 2022 to grant all the sixteen (16) appellants bail pending trial.
All the 16 appellants were jointly charged with other two appellants Tichareva Nyaku and Priscila Gosa who were also denied bail pending appeal by the same court a quo. These two filed a separate appeal to this court on CRB 126 – 27/22 and the appeal was not opposed by the State (the respondent). Consequently they were... More
This is an application for summary judgment brought in terms of Order 10 rule 64 of the High Court rules, 1971 (the rules). It stems from a long running dispute over the continued occupation of a farm which has since been acquired by the state by its previous owner (or more accurately by those that claim through him). The applicant avers that the respondents have no bona fide defence to his claim for eviction in case number HC 379/2019 and that appearance to defend was entered only for purposes of delay. More
I have had the privilege of hearing counsel in this matter both on the question of law and the facts relating to this case. I propose to adopt a wholistic approach.
The question of law
It is the settled legal position that in order to be granted interim interdict the applicant must satisfy the following requirements:
a) that the right which has prompted the applicant to make the application and which right they seek to protect is clear or if not clear is prima facie established though open to some doubt;
b) that if the right is only prima facie... More
: When we adjourned yesterday I had asked counsel to prepare heads of argument to give the court a broader and a more informed perception of the issues that occupied all of us yesterday. Immediately the parties had left my chambers and as I embarked on my crash research exercise, I realized I was able to come up with a decision unaided by counsel. More
This is an appeal against a judgment of a Magistrate sitting at Masvingo. At the centre of the dispute is a Toyota Corona motor vehicle registration number AND 4042 (hereinafter called the vehicle). The vehicle was sold to appellant by first respondent. What transpired thereafter is not agreed between the parties. The appellant and 1st respondent were plaintiff and defendant respectively in the court a quo.
When referring to the proceedings before the Magistrates Court I will refer to them as plaintiff and defendant. More
Appellant’s three grounds of appeal were that
- “the nature of offence of suspected theft does not exist in the code of conduct.
- Respondent is acting on hearsay without sufficient evidence.
- He is victimizing appellant who reported of theft 3 days earlier” More
On 13 March 2015 the plaintiffs issued summons against the defendants. In their prayer they were asking for:
“1. An order for eviction of the 1st defendant and all those claiming occupation through her from Stand 9568 Budiriro 5B, Harare.
2. An order that the 2nd defendant against payment of the balance of US$1 700.00 (one thousand seven hundred United States dollars) tenders cession to the plaintiffs of Stand 9568 Budiriro 5B, Harare. More
This is an appeal from a decision of an arbitrator who dismissed appellant’s claim on the basis that it had prescribed.
The background to this case is somewhat disputed. The appellant was employed by the respondent as a farm manager until the contract of employment was terminated by respondent in 2007. The appellant filed a complaint with the Ministry of Labour at Karoi for unfair labour practice. No certificate was issued since parties agreed to give the employment relationship another chance. According to appellant the employment relationship continued to be acrimonious and he sought to resuscitate the 2007 matter before... More
