: On 14 October 2011 the plaintiff issued summons against the first and second defendants. The second defendant (excipient) excepted to the summons. More
The applicants raised certain claims against their employer which is the respondent in casu. They claimed payment of the following allowances: medical, housing, utilities, shift and underground, cafeteria, production bonuses and food hampers. They took their case to arbitration. The learned arbitrator heard submissions from the applicants and the respondent which the applicants cited as Freda Rebecca Gold Mine. He entered judgment for the applicants. The arbitral award as quantified came to a staggering figure of $1 494 450.64. More
On 11 March 2015, the High Court granted part of the claim sought by Valentine Ziswa and his wife Margaret Ziswa (the cross appellants) against Graeme Shaun Chadwick and Landos (Pvt) Ltd (the cross respondents). The court a quo dismissed the claims of the cross appellants as against the second cross respondent in their entirety and granted part of the claims as against the first cross respondent. The cross appellants seek a reversal of the dismissal orders issued a quo. More
The plaintiff and defendant were married in terms of the Marriages Act, [Cap 5:11] on 8 December 2000. They had commenced living together as husband and wife in the year 1998 on a date they were not agreed on. On 15 October 1998 they had married under customary law.
Their marriage was not blessed with any child.
In October 2008 plaintiff brought this action seeking a decree of divorce and an equitable distribution of assets she alleged the couple had accumulated. She alleged that the marriage had irretrievably broken down to an extent whereby there was no reasonable prospect of... More
Before us is an appeal and cross appeal. The brief background facts which are common cause are that the appellant has been leasing the respondent’s premises, namely shops 10 and 11 Kensington Centre in Harare (the premises), for the past twenty-five plus years. Throughout this relationship, the parties would conclude periodic leases and the last such agreement was executed on 12 September 2019. It would run from 1 September 2019 to 31 December 2020. In terms of clause 3, the rentals were payable in Zimbabwean dollars at the Stanbic Bank midrate for the day, charged per month. For the period... More
The applicant sought a provisional order which I granted as amended on 3 May 2021. Reasons for my order have been requested in writing for the purposes of an appeal, which has since been lodged. The provisional order sought was to effectively grant the applicant unrestricted access to the unoccupied portion of Modzone Farm. Below are the reasons behind my decision. More
The principle which the court laid in Smith v Hughes, RL6 QBD 597 te 607 holds true today just as it did at the time that it was pronounced. It neatly fits into the circumstances of this application. It reads:
“If, whatever a man’s real intention may be, he so conducts himself that a reasonable man would believe that he was assenting to the terms proposed by the other party, and that other party upon that belief enters into the contract with him, the man thus conducting himself would equally be bound as if he had intended to agree to... More
This is an application for review of the proceedings of the Health Services Board Disciplinary Committee. Applicant was a principal tutor at Mpilo Central Hospital. She was charged with acts of misconduct in terms of the Health Service Regulations SI 117/06. A disciplinary hearing was conducted on 2 December 2013 and she was found guilty and was discharged from service. Applicant appealed to the respondent against conviction and penalty. He respondent ruled that the matter be reheard with it assuming the role of the Disciplinary authority. More
This is an application for leave to execute a judgement of the High Court granted on 26 November 2010 HC 5332/06 pending an appeal noted in the Supreme Court by the respondent on 14 December 2010. More
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
