The matter was set down before me as an application for dismissal in terms of Rule 19(3)(a) of the Labour Court Rules, 2006.
When the parties appeared it was submitted by the respondent that the appellant having filed heads out of time the appellant was automatically barred and the court was urged to proceed to determine the matter on the merits.
The appellant through counsel however submitted an oral application for condonation. It was submitted on its behalf that there was a reasonable explanation for the delay in filing heads. The matter was being handled at appellant’s legal counsel firm... More
This is an appeal against a decision of the appeals board of the Chemicals and Fertilizers Manufacturing Industry handed down on 26 August 2013.
Respondent is a former employee of the appellant. He was employed as a machine operator in the production department until his dismissal on 29 May 2013 which was effective from 22 April 2013 being the date of suspension. More
This matter was set down as an appeal by the appellant against the setting aside of the respondent’s dismissal by the N.E.C. appeals committee for the Chemicals and Fertilisers Manufacturing Industry.On the set down date the appellant made an oral application for the condonation of its late filing of the heads of argument in the matter. It is the condonation application which is the subject matter of the instant judgment. More
On 23 July 2014 the Appeals Committee of the NEC for the Chemicals & Fertilizers Manufacturing Industry made a determination. It ordered Appellant to reinstate Respondent’s employment or pay him damages in lieu of reinstatement. Appellant then appealed to this Court against the determination. Respondent opposed the appeal. More
The applicants were the recipients of an arbitral award granted on 22 July 2009 against the respondent. In this application they seek the procedural relief of registration of the award as a judgment of this court in terms of s 98 (14) as read with s 98 subs (13) and (15) of the Labour Act [Cap 28:07]. They do not seek any substantive relief.
The respondent has opposed this application on the grounds that the award was irregularly obtained. An appeal against the grant of the award is pending in the Labour Court as well as an application for stay... More
The present application was set down for hearing on 15 November 2013. On the mentioned date, both parties appeared and, by consent, sought a postponement of the hearing to 2.30 pm on Wednesday 20 November 2013. The postponement aimed at affording the parties an opportunity to discuss the case amongst, and between, themselves with a view to arriving at a settlement. The postponement was premised on the following two conditions which were that: More
This is an application in terms of which the applicant sued the respondent for relief in terms of the draft order which draft order is couched in the following terms-
“It is ordered that
1. It be and is hereby declared that the purported cancellation and termination of the joint venture agreement is null and void, and that any such cancellation will be valid if done in terms of the following:
1.1 if any party wishing to resile from the joint venture gives the other party 24 months notice, in writing;
1.2 if any and all sums of money owed... More
The applicant is a trust. It was registered on 20 August, 2015. It has, as its main objective, the enhancement of the lives and welfare of vendors and informal traders who operate in Zimbabwe. More
The proceedings herein stem from a decision of the Supreme Court in SC 13/12 setting aside the earlier judgment of this Court in HH 87-2010 and remitting the matter for determination after hearing evidence on two specific issues. The first relates to the rate of exchange applicable at the time when the defendant paid the sum of MK4,819,512 in discharge of the judgment of the Malawi High Court. The second pertains to the rate of interest, if any, applicable to the sum of US$848,662 awarded by the Supreme Court of Malawi. As was specifically pointed out in HH 87-2010, no... More
This is an appeal against the findings of the Appeals Committee which confirmed Appellant’s conviction and dismissal on the following charges;
(1) willful and serious breach of established, documented and published company rules procedures and regulations and standing instructions including till procedures, safety rules security measures, customer care rules and motor vehicle policies amongst others; and
(2) Gross incompetency or inefficiency in the performance of work. More
The facts as borne by the state outline, are that the accused person in the company of his co-accused who did not tender a guilty plea resulting in the separation of trial and the complainant are related. The trio had a dispute over an itel cellphone belonging to the other accused at the complainant’s homestead. It is alleged that though the complainant handed over the phone to the said accused person he was attacked with a machete by the 1st accused on his right hand and further assaulted on the head by the 2nd accused. He sustained severe injuries as... More
1. This is a composite judgment in respect of two applications for bail pending appeal, i.e. Cases No. HC 186/22 and HC 187/22. The applicants in both cases were jointly charged and tried together before the Regional Magistrate Court, sitting in Plumtree. Although each applicant filed his own notice of appeal, they are appealing the same judgment, and they both seek release on bail pending the finalisation of their respective appeals against the same judgment. At the hearing of the applications, applicants were both represented by one counsel. I then heard the two applications jointly and hence this composite judgment. More
The applicants intend to appeal against an arbitral award, which award was issued on the 23rd September, 2013. This application for condonation was filed in this Court on the 2nd May, 2014. This is a delay of 7 months. More
This application for review was filed on 30 September 2013. The grounds for review are;
1. In hearing and determining the matter before her, the Honourable Arbitrator demonstrated that she was motivated by malice.
2. There was gross irregularity in the proceedings, more particularly in that the Arbitrator invoked the wrong Statutory Instrument.
3. There was violation of the rules of natural justice, more particularly the audi alteram parten. More
The appellant was convicted of indecent assault as defined in s 67 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act, [Chapter 9:23], that he perpetrated on his sister-in-law. The facts upon which the conviction was based on can be summarized as follows:
Complainant was coming from a borehole where she had gone to fetch water. She met the appellant who asked her to wait for her. Considering such a request coming from a brother-in-law inappropriate, she ignored him and went on. He caught up with her, grabbed her by the hand and then fondled her breasts without her consent and... More
