This is an appeal against an arbitral award which ordered that respondent be reinstated without loss of salary and benefits from the date of unlawful dismissal or that he be paid damages in lieu of reinstatement. More
The background to the matter is that the respondent employee filed his appeal with the Labour Court on 3 August 2015. The appeal was set down to be heard on 16 February 2016. Applicant employer defaulted on that day and the respondent employee applied that his appeal be allowed in the default of the employer. The default order was granted as prayed for. Irked by the default order the applicant applied to the Labour Court to have the default judgment set aside. It is the rescission application which is the subject of this judgment. More
On 21st December 2015 at Harare, Arbitrator T. Zimbudzana issued an arbitration award. He dismissed Appellant’s claim of unfair dismissal from employment by Respondent. He however awarded her claim for underpayments and terminal benefits. Appellant then appealed to this Court against the award. Respondent opposed the appeal. More
This is an appeal against the entire judgment of the Labour Court handed down on 21 November 2014. After hearing argument in this matter, the court dismissed the appeal and indicated that the reasons would follow. More
This is an application for condonation for the late filing of an application for review and extension of time within which to apply for review of the proceedings held before the 1st respondent.
Background
The 2nd respondent was employed by the 3rd respondent as its managing director. He was charged with gross incompetence and inefficiency in terms of the governing regulations. He was found guilty and dismissed. He challenged the proceedings in an application for review which was successful and the 2nd respondent was reinstated without loss of salary or benefits. The 3rd respondent (the employer) was aggrieved and unsuccessfully... More
This is an application for the dismissal of the respondent’s appeal for want of prosecution. The application has been made in terms of Rule 19 (3) (a) of the Labour Court Rules, S.I. 59/2006 (The Rules), on the basis that the respondent has not filed heads of argument. More
This is an appeal against a decision of the Labour Court judgment number LC/H/122/2012 dated 17 August 2012. After hearing arguments from both counsel the appeal was dismissed with costs. It was indicated that the reasons for this decision would follow in due course. More
The plaintiff ordered an Isuzu KB 250 double cab motor vehicle from the defendant in June 2005. The defendant is a car dealer. The price quoted to the plaintiff for the motor vehicle was $850 000 000-00. The plaintiff paid that sum on 1 June 2005. On 27 June 2005 the defendant, through its managing director, acknowledged receipt of the money and undertook to deliver the motor vehicle within 21 (twenty-one) working days. The motor vehicle was to be imported from South Africa. At the expiry of the twenty-one days there was no delivery. The defendant requested an extension of... More
This is an appeal against the Arbitrator’s ruling which awarded the Respondent a salary increase in essence varying the retrenchment package agreed to by the parties.
The background to this case is as follows. The Respondent was employed by the Appellant until the 31st of March 2010 when he was retrenched. The Appellant and the Respondent agreed on the retrenchment package which was duly signed on the 15th of February 2010. While the parties were negotiating the retrenchment package, the Appellant was reviewing its employee’s salaries. Respondent was aware of this. The salary review resulted in a 38% salary increment... More
This is an appeal against a determination of the National Hearing Committee for the National Employment Council for the Communications and Allied Services (hereinafter referred to as the Appeals Committee). More
This matter comes as both an appeal and a review. It is a review of the Respondent’s National Employment Council (Appeals Committee’s) decision to dismiss the appeal by the Appellant. The appeal is against the hearing committee’s decision that found Appellant guilty and imposed a dismissal penalty.
The Appellant was employed as a security supervisor by the Respondent. His job description was not produced at any stage during all the proceedings for a clear understanding of what was expected of him. He was charged for gross incompetence. He appeared before Respondent’s disciplinary committeewhich found him guilty and dismissed him. Appellant... More
The plaintiff’s claim was for specific performance. In terms of a written agreement of sale on 1 February 2001 the plaintiff bought from the defendant Stand 644 Marimba Park Township, measuring 6820 m2(hereafter referred to as “the property”). The purchase price was $950 000. It was payable by a cash deposit of $450 000 and monthly instalments of $20 000 commencing on 28 February 2001. A bank account was provided into which the instalments would be deposited. The wording of the agreement of sale regarding instalment payments was as follows: More
Respondent raised a preliminary point at the hearing of this appeal, that the United Builders Merchants (UBM) has dirty hands as it failed to comply with the arbitral award issued against it. More
The applicant seeks relief by way of a declaratur. The relief sought is captured in the draft order as follows:
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT;-
i) An order declaring Deed of Transfer 6618/03 dated 9th September 2003 registered in the name of Unitime Investments (Private) Limited as the holding deed for Stand 825 Bannockburn of Stand 1 Bannockburn.
ii) An order cancelling Deed of transfer 3678/03 registered in the name of 5th and 6th Respondent.
iii) An order cancelling the Deed of Transfer 3677/03 that had been registered in the name of 4th Respondent.
iv) In terms of paragraph (i)... More
After hearing the parties on 1 September 2014 this Court pronounced:
“It is the unanimous view of this Court that the appeal has merit and ought to succeed.
Accordingly, it is ordered as follows:
1. The appeal is allowed with costs.
2. The judgment of the court a quo is set aside and substituted with the following:
‘The application is dismissed with costs.’
Reasons for this judgment will follow in due course.” More
