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
MABHIKWA J: The applicant issued summons against the 1st respondent out of the Magistrates’ Court at Kwekwe in case number KK 07/19. The now 1st respondent was the defendant whilst the now 2nd respondent was the trial magistrate in that case. The facts of that matter are not important in this judgment but briefly, they related to an alleged improper use of a hire truck belonging to the applicant. The 1st respondent, who was an employee of the applicant, allegedly misused the truck for hire for personal gain. The applicant demanded the value of the hire fees from him. 1st... More
This is an appeal against an arbitral award wherein the arbitrator held that Respondent had been constructively dismissed as his resignation on the 31st January, 2011 was as a result of intolerable situations Appellant had subjected him to. The arbitrator also held that the caveat subscriptor rule did not apply to Respondent’s action for constructive dismissal as he signed the document only for the collection of his leave pay and January 2011 salary. More
The present feud has its genesis in matters of employment law. The first and second respondents are the third respondent’s managing director and human resources manager respectively. The Applicant was employed by the third respondent as a manager. In 1995 he was dismissed from employment by the respondents. On 21 December, 1999, the Employment Council for the Banking Undertaking which heard the applicant’s appeal, resolved that an incorrect Code of Conduct had been used and ordered that the applicant “should be reinstated with full pay and benefits from the date of his initial discharge, to the date that the hearing... More
This is again another application which raises the issue of guardianship rights and the circumstances under which a parent may be divested of such rights. The application was initially allocated to CHATUKUTA J who raised a query with the legal practitioner on 28 December 2010. When this query was not responded to, she then referred the matter to the Family Court Division of the High Court on 18 October 2011. On receipt of the chamber application I then requested the Registrar to invite the applicant’s legal practitioner to come in so that I could discuss his application with him as... More
This matter was set down as an application for the rescission of a judgment which was handed down in default of the applicant employer. On the hearing date the respondent raised a point at the outset. The point was meant to dispose of the matter without going into the merits. It is this point as the outset which is the subject of this judgment.
The background to the matter is that the respondent employee was dismissed from applicant’s employ on allegations of certain misconduct in contravention of the National Code of Conduct. The matter ended up at arbitration where the... More
This is an opposed application wherein applicant seeks the following relief:-
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED
1. That applicant was on a contract without limit of time.
2. That the variation of the applicant’s contract of employment is null and void
3. That the fixed term contract be taken to never have existed and that the respondent reinstates the applicant to his employment as if the purported termination of contract never happened.
4. That there be no order of costs if application is not opposed.” More
