Appellant worked for Respondent as a teacher. He was charged with various acts of misconduct. The main offence was improper association with a female pupil at his school. A hearing was conducted. He was found guilty and then dismissed from employment. He has appealed to this Court against the dismissal. More
The applicants approached this court seeking the review of the first respondent’s decision to allocate a piece of communal land in Wada Nhira Village, Chief Neshangwe, Chikomba District of Mashonaland East Province to the third respondent. The application was made in terms of s 4(1) of the Administrative Justice Act [Chapter 10:28] (the AJA). More
The Applicant in casu who had been represented throughout but was now appearing as a self actor explained the extent of delay and the reasons thereof. He submitted that the extent of delay being 3 months was a short period of delay. He had to wait for 3 months from the date of receipt of the quantification award due to discussions that were ongoing between the parties. He was also short of funds and could not secure the services of a legal practitioner. Upon retaining the services of counsel he had then filed the present application for condonation of late... More
This is an application for condonation for late filing an application for review. It is opposed. At the commencement of the proceedings the Court drew the applicant’s attention to the terms of the draft order. More
This is an appeal against the decision of the Negotiating Committee Appeals Board which confirmed the Appellant’s dismissal following allegations of unsatisfactory performance of his duties at the Respondent company where he was employed at the time of the alleged misconduct.
Facts of the case are that on 13th October 2011 Appellant was carrying out his security guard duties at Tiger Transport where Respondent Company had been contracted to provide security services. During that period 2 heavy duty batteries were stolen from one of the trucks parked at the place where the Appellant was guarding. More
These are two cases under one judgment. At a pre-hearing case management conference, the parties agreed to have them consolidated. It made sense. Among other things, the cause of action in both matters is the same. The real protagonists are the same. Kindred orders are being sought. Both matters were filed under certificates of urgency. They were filed on the same day. More
At all material times the applicant and the respondent were both into mining. The litigation between them concerned granite mining at two locations in Mashonaland West Province, sitting on 40 hectares of land. More
In this matter the applicant seeks leave to execute a judgment, it was granted by this court on 17 March, 2005, pending appeal.
The circumstances giving rise to these proceedings are that the applicant owns a shop known as Shop 3, Corner 5 South Avenue and Angwa Street, Harare. The applicant was a successor in title to Southern Properties (Pvt) Limited which had entered into an agreement of lease for a one year period from 1 January 2004 to 31 December 2004. In terms of clause 5 of the agreement the respondent had an option to renew the lease for... More
This is an appeal against an arbitral award handed down at Masvingo on the 14th of October, 2011. The Respondent opposes the appeal and has also noted a cross-appeal against the same arbitral award.
The background facts to the matter are as follows;
The Respondents were employed by theAppellant on fixed term contracts. They were employed as Shop Assistants Grade 4 (as submitted by Appellant and rebutted by Respondent) in respect of Kapitano, Davison Gavaya and Cashier grade 6 (Jane Madondo). The terms of office were supposed to expire in the case of I. Kapitano in May 2011, for D.... More
The applicant approached this court on an urgent basis seeking a provisional order to interdict the respondent from demolishing and evicting residents at stand number 3973 Budiriro 2 Harare. The facts of the matter are that the applicant which is a cooperative invaded the respondent’s piece of land at number 3979 Budiriro 2 Harare and parceled out residential stands to residents without the respondent’s authority. The respondent issued summons for the eviction against the applicant and those claiming occupation through it on the 18th of December 2018 which summons was served on the applicant on the 28th December 2018. A... More
The applicant is a property owning company that leased certain premises to the respondent in terms of a written lease agreement that has been varied from time to time with the written consent of the parties. A dispute arose between the parties as to the payment of rentals for the leased premises resulting in the applicant canceling the lease agreement between the parties on 24 January 2007. At the time of the cancellation of the lease agreement, the applicant alleged that the respondent was in arrears with its rentals to the tune of $ 5 810 000-00. More
On 27th July 2012 the Honourable L.Chibvongodze made an arbitration award. In terms thereof she ordered Appellant to reinstate Respondent’s employment. Appellant then appealed to this Court against the award. The grounds of appeal were two-fold namely,
“1. The Arbitrator erred at law in determining a matter which she had no jurisdiction to determine upon.
2. The Arbitrator erred grossly both on the facts and at law in interfering with the penalty imposed by the Appellant, which penalty was an exercise of discretion.” More
At the hearing of this matter, appellant raised a point in limine, to the effect that the Trade Union representing the respondents cannot do so without showing proof of its authority to represent the respondents.
I reserved judgment on the point in limine, and directed that the parties file supplementary Heads of Argument covering that aspect i.e. the Trade Union’s locus standi in judicio. The parties duly filed their supplementary Heads of Argument. More
Applicant employer filed an application with this court which it styles “Application for leave to correct the record by reinstating missing information in Case No LC/H/298A/13”
Respondent employees are opposed to the grant of such application calling it a disguised application for leave to adduce further evidence on appeal. It is only this application which is addressed by this judgment. More
