This is an urgent chamber application for an interdict in which the following order is sought (as amended);
“TERMS OF FINAL ORDER SOUGHT”
That you show cause to this Honourable Court if any, why a final order should not be made in the following terms:
1. The urgent application for an interdict pending the hearing of case number HC 4433/21 be and is hereby granted.
2. Respondent pays costs of suit on higher scale More
This is an appeal against the whole judgment of the High Court handed down on 17 July 2017 in which the court registered an arbitral award in favour of the respondents. More
On 23 September 2020 we invited the parties to address the Court on a point in limine that arose after judgment was reserved in this matter. The point in limine is whether the High Court, in the exercise of its powers to issue a declaratur, could properly issue one in a purely labour matter in the light of s 2A(3) of the Labour Act [Chapter 26:01] “the Labour Act,” which provides that the Labour Act shall prevail over any other enactment inconsistent with it, as read also with s 89(6), which provides for the exclusive jurisdiction of the Labour Court... More
This is an appeal against an arbitral award handed down per Honourable B. Mudiwa, Arbitrator on 31st August 2015, which award directed Respondent’s reinstatement into her original position or in the event of her reinstatement being untenable payment of damages in lieu of reinstatement. More
This is an appeal in terms of section 65 of the Income Tax Act, ( ITA) where on 3 March 2020 the parties agreed that the main issues for determination would be the following:
“1. Whether or not the respondent failed to give reasons for reassessing the appellant thus rendering the assessment unlawful.
2. Whether or not there was any fraud, misrepresentation or willful non- disclosure of facts entitling the Respondent to reassess the Appellant for the years 2010 and 2011 after the expiry of the six (6) year prescription period?
3. Whether or not General Notice 274 of 2010... More
This is an appeal against the whole judgment of the Labour Court upholding the National Employment Council- Tobacco Grievance and Disciplinary Committee’s (‘NEC GDC Committee’) finding that the appellant tacitly renewed the respondents’ contracts of employment. More
This is an urgent court application for an actio rei vindicatio in respect of a motor vehicle, a Toyota Hilux (Double Cab) Registration No. AFU 9680. The motor vehicle belongs to the applicant. It was allocated to the respondent for use as an employment benefit. It is common cause that the respondent is no longer an employee of the applicant, having been retrenched and given his retrenchment package. More
The 1st defendant leased its premises to the plaintiff in June 2009 for the warehousing, storage and related handling of tobacco bales. The 2nd defendant contracted to provide security services for the premises and its contents. Following the loss of 1446 bales of tobacco, the plaintiff sued both defendants for their value in the sum of US$438,355. The plaintiff’s claim is grounded in contract or, in the alternative, in negligence. More
This is an appeal against the decision of the National Employment Council (NEC) Grievance & Disciplinary Committee (GDC) which confirmed Respondent’s conviction for misconduct, and imposed a penalty of a final warning. More
This is an appeal from the decision of the Tobacco Industry NEC. The determination dated 18 March 2016 states as follows
“The appeal succeeds. The appellants are to be reinstated for the unexpired period of the contracts without loss of pay and benefits or they are to be paid their salaries and benefits up to 30 April 2017.”
The brief history of the matter is that the respondents were engaged on a two year contract by the appellant for the period running from 1 May 2011 to 30 April 2013. The respondents continued working until they were given other two... More
This is an application for an order to compel the Respondent to deliver and or furnish the Applicant with Bills of Entry concerning certain computers imported and supplied to the Applicant by the Respondent as per the contract entered into by and between the parties hereto. The Applicant seeks an order that should Respondent fail to furnish Applicant with the Bills of Entry within 7 days of the Order being served on it, then the Respondent shall be liable to pay the penalty that will be levied against the Applicant by the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe in relation thereto. More
On 23 May 2024, the court refused first and second respondents` application for upliftment of a bar. The court furnished the reasons thereof ex tempore and issued the following order; -
1) The application for upliftment of the bar by First and Second Respondents for failure to file heads of argument in terms of the Rules of Court be and is hereby dismissed with costs.
2) Matter to proceed as unopposed. More
The respondents in this case were employer by the appellant on fixed term contracts.
When the fixed term contracts expired, the respondents came back to work. The employer gave them forms to sign as it was the intention of both parties to continue with the arrangement between themselves though the employer indicated that the period of the fixed term contract would just be one month. More
The applicant is the registered owner of a warehouse situate at Tobacco Sales Floor Complex, Gleneagles Road, Harare. The applicant carries on business at the said premises as a tobacco auction floor. On 11 July 2007 the applicant concluded a written agreement with the respondent in terms of which the latter leased from the applicant a portion of the warehouse; to wit an area of 1241.91 square metres. The lease was to endure for a period of three years, commencing on 1 June 2007 and terminating on 31 May 2010. On 14 December 2009 the applicant addressed a letter to... More
This appeal was referred to me in terms of section 89 (2)(a) of the Labour Act (Chapter 28:01). The brief facts show that the appellant was employed by the respondent as a teacher. At the termination of the employment contract, appellant made a claim for terminal benefits. Respondent was of the view that appellant was not entitled to the benefits he had claimed. The matter ended up in arbitration. The arbitrator made a ruling that appellant was entitled to receive an amount totalling US$5804-00. The appellant is dissatisfied with the decision and has appealed to this Court. More
