The respondent was dismissed by the appellant. In so dismissing the respondent, the appellant did not follow the provisions of the applicable code - The National Code of Conduct Statutory Instrument 15 of 2006. The respondent was aggrieved by the dismissal and the manner in which the dismissal was done. He pursued the dispute resolution system. The matter was conciliated upon without yielding the desired results. The matter was referred to arbitration. More
This is an application for stay of execution of an arbitral award handed down on 16 September 2015, in terms whereof the applicant was ordered to pay the respondents a total sum of US$6424-98 as arrear salaries. This was after the arbitrator ruled that the disciplinary proceedings that led to the respondents’ dismissal were null and void. More
Most of the facts in this case are common cause though the matter has a long history. For the sake of brevity I will detail the facts as follows. Respondents were previously employed by a company styled Mitchell Cotts Travel in Mutare. When that company closed, respondents were then employed by the appellant on new contracts. More
This is an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. At the onset the respondent employer took 2 points that the application was ill placed. This was on account of the fact that it is referred to using the wrong section of the Labour Act that is 92F(3) instead of S 92 F(2). It is also reasoned by the employee that the intended appeal grounds do not raise points of law. In response to the points the applicant conceded the ill citation and prayed that since it is in the form of typo error it be condoned and... More
The accused was convicted on his plea of guilty on two counts under the Road Traffic Act (Chapter 13:11)‘the Act’ for driving without a driver’s licence and negligent driving in contravention of s6 (1) (a) and s52 (2) of the Act respectively. On the first count he was sentenced to pay a fine of $30 000.00 in default of payment 3 months imprisonment. In addition 5 months imprisonment was wholly suspended for five years on the usual conditions. The accused was also prohibited from driving all classes of vehicles for five years. More
On 26 March 2011 the Applicant filed an application in this Court seeking the following order:
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. The Agreement of Sale that was entered into between the City of Masvingo and
Treasure Consultants (Private) Limited, for the sale of 500 stands in the Runyararo South West Residential area Masvingo, on 20 December 2005, (“the Agreement”) be and is hereby declared a validity existing agreement.
2. The purported existing cancellation of the Agreement by the First Respondent is void and therefore a legal nullity for want of compliance with the Law.” More
The case came before me as a civil trial. At the close of the plaintiff’s case, the defendant advised the court that it wished to make an application for absolution from the instancein terms Rule 56(6) of the High Court Rules 2021. In this respect, the defendant asked the court to allow him to make written submissions in support of the said application, resulting in the court giving the parties timelines within which to file their respective submissions. The plaintiff opposed the application for reasons I will fully canvas in this judgement. It is imperative to give a background to... More
This is an appeal against the decision of NEC Disciplinary Committee Motor Industry which was issued on the 27 June 2012. The NEC Disciplinary Committee ordered the appellant to reinstate the respondent without loss of salary and benefits.
The respondent had been charged with wilful disobedience to a lawful order by the employer. It was alleged that on the 23 July 2008 whilst the respondent was on duty he refused to carry out a lawful order that was give to him by the General Manager Operations Mr M Ralphs. It is alleged that in the hearing he admitted that he... More
On 13 November 2015 at the hearing of this application for condonation of the late noting of an appeal by the applicant employer against the respondents employees, parties agreed that judgment be reserved on the basis that it would be written out based on the heads of arguments and other documents filed of record. This therefore is the judgment in that matter. More
In this application Tregers Industries (“the applicant”) seeks a refund of the sum of $2,183,861,227-71 paid by its bankers to the Zimbabwe Revenue Authority (“the respondent”) at the instance and instructions of the respondent. The application is opposed. More
The applicant seeks the following relief-
“TERMS OF FINAL ORDER SOUGHT
That you show cause to the Honourable Court why a final order should not be made in the following terms-
1. The interim relief be and is hereby confirmed.
2. The execution of a garnishee of accounts during contestation of tax liability be and is hereby declared unlawful.
3. Section 69 of the Income Tax Act [Chapter 23:06] be and is hereby declared unconstitutional and struck down.
4. That the respondent shall pay the costs of this suit on a higher scale of legal practitioner and client only if... More
This is an urgent application for stay of execution of a judgment given in Case No. HC 12328/12. The judgment registered for the purposes of enforcement an arbitral award rendered in terms of section 98 of the Labour Act[Cap 28:01] in favour of the first respondent and against the applicant. The award was submitted for registration in terms of section 98(14) of that Act. The salient facts which culminated in the filing of the instant urgent chamber applicationmay be summarised as follows: More
The applicant seeks a spoliation order in the form of a provisional order couched as follows:
“TERMS OF THE FINAL ORDER SOUGHT
That you show cause to this Honourable Court why a final order should not be made in the following terms.
(a) The forcible ejectment from Wolverhampton Farm of the applicant by the first to third respondents and all those acting in concert with them is unlawful.
(b) The cutting of the applicant’s gum plantation and sale of the timber by the first respondent and those acting through him is unlawful.
(c) The fourth respondent shall do all that... More
The applicant approached this court seeking the following order:
“1. It is be and is hereby declared that, barring, ejectment and or interference of the Applicant’s attendance in the pre-budget consultative meetings and National Assembly on account of Applicant’s wearing of a colourful Rastafari jacket constitutes a violation of his right to freedom of conscience and religion as set out under Section 60 of the Constitution.
2. it is be and is hereby declared that Section 76(1)(a) as read with section 76(5) of the National Assembly Standing Rules and Orders permits the Applicant to wear his Rastafari colourful jacket in... More
