An arbitral award was made in this matter dealing with the parties’ employment dispute. Both parties were not satisfied by the arbitral award of 14 November 2011. The appellants noted an appeal to this court under case number LC/H/694/11 and the Respondent filed a cross appeal under case number LC/H/698/11. An application was made to this court for consolidation of the two cases. The application was granted. To avoid confusion in references Sydney Rukweza and Godfrey Duwati shall be referred to as the appellants and Marondera Rural District Council shall be referred to as the cross appellant. More
The plaintiff issued summons against the defendants claiming $ZWL 500 000-00 for unlawful arrest and detention. The plaintiff sought damages from the defendants based on vicarious liability emanating from a claim that the plaintiff was apprehended, assaulted and detained by employees of the first and fourth defendants. The defendants defended the claim and proceeded to file an exception and special plea on the basis that the summons and declaration by the plaintiff lacks the material articulations that establish vicarious liability. The summons and declaration is devoid of the names of the individuals who committed the offence against the plaintiff. Further... More
The background to the matter is that the respondent issuedsummons in the court a quo against the appellant for eviction and arrear rentals. The basis for the claim was that the respondent entered into an agreement with the applicant whereby the respondent would sublet to the applicant some shop space, which he rented from Sinoa holdings (Pvt) Ltd. It was a material term that the applicant would pay $860-00 per month as rentals. It was the respondent’s claim that the applicant breached the terms of the agreement by failing to pay rent resulting in arrears in the sum of $2... More
The Appellant noted an appeal against the determination by the National Employment Council for the Textile Industry Appeals Board dated 8 April 2013 which determination upheld the Appellant’s conviction on the charge of theft and the imposition of the dismissal penalty. More
The plaintiff issued summons against the four defendants claiming payment by the defendant of the sum of US$70 505.05 being the capital sum to be used to purchase pension benefits from a registered pension fund to be nominated by the plaintiff, interest on the aforesaid sum at the prescribed rate calculated from the date of the summons to the date of full payment as well as costs of suit. More
Matirasa Katsvairo and Tawainga Arnold Katsvairo who are the first and second respondents contracted a civil marriage on 25 December 1965. The marriage still subsists. In 1979 the applicant and the second respondent entered into an unregistered customary law union. On 8 November 1989 they purported to register a customary law marriage under the African Marriages Act [Chapter 238]. In registering that marriage the second respondent gave his marital status as a person who was already married under the African Marriages Act [Chapter 238]. This purported marriage between the applicant and the second respondent was later declared null and void... More
This is a matrimonial cause wherein it is common cause that the
marriage has irretrievably broken down. The only issue for the determination of the court
was agreed by the parties at a pre-trial conference before as Judge as being -
"What would constitute a fair and reasonable division of the matrimonial assets?" More
This case is founded upon the declaration which was filed by the plaintiff in this court on 25 June 2005 and whose relevant contents can be restated as follows:-
On or about March 1999 the plaintiff and the first defendant entered into an agreement in two parts. The first part was that the parties would jointly purchase property known as the Remainder of Cherutombo, Marondera from Dulys (Private) Limited with the plaintiff paying 1/3 and the first defendant 2/3 of the price that was to be set by Dulys (Private) Limited. More
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
