This matter was heard in chambers as an urgent application on the afternoon of the 27th of January 2005. The applicant sought a provisional order interdicting the first respondent from issuing any further shares, whether as a rights issue or otherwise, until the occurrence of certain events. The applicant also sought authority to appoint one or more representatives to participate and vote at any extraordinary general meeting (“EGM”) of the first respondent without interference from the second respondent. Pending finalisation of the matter, the applicant sought interim relief postponing the first respondent’s EGM which was scheduled for 9.00 a.m. on... More
This is an application for leave to execute the judgment granted in case No. HH 103/09 pending an appeal noted by the 2nd respondent against the judgment. More
In this matter, plaintiff issued summons on 15 September 2017 where it claimed:
(a) The refund of the US$21 700 being the balance of the purchase price for a stamp mill which the parties agreed that defendant would refund to the plaintiff following the parties’ agreement to cancel the contract of sale. Plaintiff had allegedly bought a stamp mill from the defendant.
(b) Costs of suit.
In its plea, defendant admitted that the parties entered into an agreement of sale, save to say that such agreement was oral. Defendant also admitted that plaintiff paid $26 700 towards the purchase price.... More
MABHIKWA J: In this matter, plaintiff issued summons on 15 September 2017 where it claimed:
(a) The refund of the US$21 700 being the balance of the purchase price for a stamp mill which the parties agreed that defendant would refund to the plaintiff following the parties’ agreement to cancel the contract of sale. Plaintiff had allegedly bought a stamp mill from the defendant.
(b) Costs of suit.
In its plea, defendant admitted that the parties entered into an agreement of sale, save to say that such agreement was oral. Defendant also admitted that plaintiff paid $26 700 towards the... More
This is an application to compel the respondent to provide certain information pertaining to the review of the rentals in the lease agreement between the respondent and the lessor in the principal lease agreement. The draft order also seeks a declaration to the effect that the applicant is entitled to such information in terms of the contract of lease between it and the respondent and that a failure/refusal to provide the information constitutes a breach of the lease agreement. The alternative relief sought in the draft order is for a declaration that the failure/refusal to provide such information violates s... More
This is an application for condonation for the late filing of an application for review. When the matter was first heard on 7 May 2024 both respondents were in default. The Court sought to seek clarifications from the 2nd respondent and invited him to Court. During the 2nd hearing on 3 July 2023, the 2nd respondent appeared in person. More
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
On 9th April 2024 this Court issued a default judgment in terms of which it set aside the determination by Designated Agent A. Chimedza. The determination had ruled that respondent unlawfully terminated applicant’s employment. On the 8th May 2024 applicant applied for the rescission of the default judgment. The application was made in terms of Section 92C of the Labour Act Chapter 28:01 as read with Rule 40 of the Labour Court Rules, 2017. Respondent opposed the application. 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 direct access brought in terms of s 167(5) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe, as read with r 21 of the Constitutional Court Rules, 2016 (the Rules). The applicant seeks an order allowing it to approach this Court directly so as to challenge the decision by the Supreme Court, under SC 11-24, wherein it ordered the applicant to pay the respondent damages arising from the unlawful termination of her employment, such damages to be paid at the prevailing interbank rate. 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
