On 28th April 2015 the appellant filed an appeal in this Court. On 13th May 2015 the respondent filed a Response. The grounds of appeal were written in long hand as follows:
“Unfair treatment, unfair allegations resulting in an unfair dismissal from unfounded allegations.”
The terse grounds of appeal provoked a robust response by the respondent thus;
“In LimineGeneral Overview
There is no appeal before the Honourable Court. The general statements presented in the notice of appeal are broad and far reaching and, crucially, do not satisfy the legal test for grounds of appeal at law. They do not show... More
The applicant approached the court seeking a declaratur that civil imprisonment by common law is unconstitutional. The applicant further sought that s 16 of the High Court Act [Chapter 7:06] hereafter referred to as the Act as well as Order 41 of the High Court Rules 1971 be declared unconstitutional. The respondents opposed the application. The issues that fell for determination are basically the constitutionality or otherwise of provisions which the applicant raised concern about. More
The appeal was referred tome for determination on the record in terms of Section 89 (2) (a) (i) of the Labour Act [Cap 28 : 01]. The matter was filed in July 2014 but has been lying idle due to failure on Appellant’s part to settle sheriff’s costs for services of Notice of Set-down. On the basis of the directive by the Senior Judge dated 3rd October, 2016 that all idle matters ready for set down be referred for determination on the record the above matter was referred to me. I proceed to determine the matter. More
Respondent was employed by the appellant as a barman. The allegations are that the respondent included a fake USD100.00 note in his daily takings which led to a disciplinary hearing. The disciplinary hearing recommended his dismissal. The matter was referred to conciliation and finally to arbitration. The Arbitrator found in favour of the respondent. More
This is an application for absolution from the instance.
The brief facts are that the plaintiff a holding company of Beta Coal brought proceedings for recovery of monies owed to Beta Coal, on an acknowledged of debt. The plaintiff alleged that it entered into an agreement with defendant whereby the defendant accepted being indebted to the plaintiff in the sum of $160 000-00. Despite demand the defendant had neglected to pay. More
The plaintiff issued summons against the defendant for the payment of US$160 000-00 together with interest at the prescribed rate from date of summons to date of payment in full. The claim is based on an acknowledgment of debt. The plaintiff also sought costs of suit. More
The plaintiff (Rephio Chirumbwa) and the defendant are embroiled in a leadership dispute in an apostolic church known as Bethlehem Apostolic Faith Church (the Church). The trial of the matter commenced in March 2022. The matter suffered from setbacks, primarily, the unavailability of witnesses which derailed its progress and ultimately its conclusion. At the conclusion of the trial, the defendant made an application for absolution from the instance at the close of the plaintiff’s case. I dismissed the application for absolution from the instance in a judgment handed down under HH 267/23. More
The first plaintiff is a common law universitas by status. As the appellation implies, it is an apostolic church with its own constitution which provides for the regulation of its affairs as well as the election of its leadership that oversees its affairs. The church is the spiritual home and sanctuary for those in need of salvation through fellowship. In terms of its constitution, one of the purposes of the first plaintiff is described as “the channel through which the holy spirit operates to extend the Kingdom of God and to Edify the Saints in the world of God…” Regrettably... More
This is an urgent application which was argued before me on 11 April 2018. After hearing Counsels for the applicants and respondents I handed down an ex tempore judgment and issued an order in the following terms:
“IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1. The respondents are ordered to restore the status quo ante which was obtaining prior to the 29th of March 2018 and restore the applicants into the church temple and premises at Stand No. 3874 Caledonia, Harare forthwith.
2. The respondents are ordered to release and return the temple keys to the applicants within 24 hours of the date... More
This matter was set down as an appeal to be heard on 8 June 2016. On that date the court observed that there was no notice of response on file. It was agreed between the parties that the matter be postponed sine die to allow for the filing of the notice of response. On 28 June 2016 the response was filed but the matter did not progress any further thereafter. The impression created by the lack of prosecution of the matter to its conclusion is that the matter was abandoned. That has prompted this court to dispose of the matter... More
At the onset of oral argument in this Court Respondent raised a point in limine which Applicant opposed. The respondent argued that the application is invalid for reliance on an incompetent draft order. The impugned draft order reads;
“It is ordered that
1.Application for condonation for failure to comply with Rule 21(1) of the Labour Court Rules, 2017 and an extension within which to comply with the provisions of Rule 21(1) be and is hereby granted.
2.Applicant’s application for reinstatement under case number LC/H/899/22 be heard by the court. More
The applicants, who are husband and wife, bought two properties being stand Nos. 1243 and 1244 from the 1st respondent. The stands cost a total of US$27 200.00. However, in trying to get transfer, 1st respondent failed to pass same because he in fact had earlier sold the properties to one Mr Makara. The said stands are situate in Senka Township, Gweru. The court notes that at the beginning of 2017 and represented by its Director, the 2nd respondent, the 1st respondent made an undertaking to repay in full the amount of US$27 200. Annexture “B” even contains a complete... More
This is an appeal against the decision of an Appeals Committee issued on 3 October 2017, which upheld the appellant’s dismissal from the respondent’s employment.
The facts forming the background to the matter are that the appellant was employed by the respondent as Finance and Administration Officer. She was responsible for, among other duties, the custody, recording, and issuing of fuel coupons for the respondent’s vehicle fleet. It is alleged that during the period 9 February 2015 to 12 June 2017, diesel coupons amounting to 660 litres could not be accounted for. It is also alleged that during the period... More
This is an appeal against the decision of the arbitrator where he ruled that appellant had resigned from her employment with respondent hence was not entitled to payment of notice pay or retrenchment package.
The background to the matter is that appellant who was in the respondent’s employ wrote on 4 April 2014 to respondent resigning from her job. She however wrote another letter on 7 April 2014 cancelling her resignation. The respondent accepted her resignation and paid her what was due to her. She was irked by the fact that respondent did not consider the withdrawal of the first... More
