MANYANGADZE J: This is an application for a declaratur, in which the applicant seeks an order declaring that its indebtedness to the respondents has been fully extinguished. The application arises out of a Labour Court judgment, LC/MS/09/18, handed down on 7 June 2018, in terms of which the applicant was ordered to pay the respondents certain benefits accruing from their contract of employment with the applicant. More
The applicants filed an Urgent Chamber Application on 26th September, 2019. The first to seventh respondents filed opposing papers on the date of the hearing The 8th to 14th respondents did not file any papers and their position is that they do not oppose the application, if the terms thereof are broadened to encapsulate their interests. Mr K. Shamuyariraa trade unionist representing the 15th respondent is opposed to the application. He also did not file opposing papers. More
The parties in this application are embroiled in a bitter dispute over the implications of their failure to specifically include Value added tax (abbreviated herein as “VAT”) matters in agreements for the milling of sugarcane. More
The applicants’ legal practitioners wrote a follow up letter dated 5 December 2016 enquiring on the judgment in this application which was argued before me on 8 November 2016. More
The facts in this matter are common cause. The appellant instituted proceedings in the magistrate court sitting at Chiredzi for the eviction of the respondents and all those claiming occupation through them from leased premises situated at Lot 11 A and Lot 12 A of Triangle Ranch Triangle Township, Triangle.
The first respondent is a company duly registered in terms of the laws of Zimbabwe. It is presently under Judicial Management. The 2nd to 32nd respondents are either farmer or current employees of the 1st respondent who occupy separate dwellings situated on the leased premises described above and are in... More
This is an application for leave to appeal a judgment of this Court, judgment number LC/H/746/13, to the Supreme Court. The Court in that judgment remitted the matter back to the applicant and ordered the applicant in the present application to record mitigation before approaching this Court. The order was made because the appeal was not properly before the Court. An adjudicating authority is enjoined by section 12 A (4) of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01] to consider mitigation before pronouncing a penalty especially where dismissal is a possibility. In that regard therefore it would have been inappropriate for the... More
This is an appeal against a determination of the National Employment Council (NEC) for the Tobacco Industry Grievance and Disciplinary Committee.
The second and fourth respondents were employed on seasonal contracts whilst the first and third respondents were employed on permanent contracts, by the appellant. More
This is an application for the review of a determination handed down by the National Employment Council Tobacco Industry Grievance and Disciplinary Committee (GDC) on 29 October 2015. The determination ordered the reinstatement of the respondents to their employment with the applicant, or payment of damages in lieu of reinstatement. More
The dispute revolves around an agreement of sale of an immovable property which was signed by the parties sometime in 2017. First respondent is a former employee of the applicant. Second respondent is the wife of the first respondent. First respondent was retrenched around 2017. Prior to the retrenchment, the applicant had advanced a loan to the first respondent. At the time of his retrenchment, the first respondent owed the applicant about US$492,000.00. The respondents signed an agreement for the sale of their property to the applicant in satisfaction of the outstanding loan amount. The parties also signed a loan... More
This is an old matter in which summons was issued in September 2018. The pre-trial conference was finalized in April 2021. The matter was set down for trial on 23 November 2021. The matter was on that date postponed to 15 February 2022 by consent. On 15 February 2012 the plaintiff’s co-counsel Ms Mabwe applied for a postponement on the basis that the plaintiffs needed to deal with a notice to amend plea which was raised by counsels for and on behalf of the 1st and 2nd defendants. The proposed amendment raised two issuesof law, firstly that the plaintiff has... More
This is an opposed application in which the applicant seeks the rescission of a judgment granted in default in case number HC 4922/11, together with costs of suit. At the hearing of the matter, I dismissed the application with costs and indicated that my reasons for so doing would follow. These are the reasons: More
On 18 January 2007 I issued an order dismissing this application and ordering costs against both applicants jointly and severally. I have been requested to give my reasons and these are they. More
It is WALLIS JA, with HARMS AJ, VAN HEERDEN and MALAN JJA and PETSE AJA all concurring who waxed lyrical in Executive Officer of the Financial Services Board v Dynamic Wealth Ltd &Ors201 2(1) SA 543 when he said:-
“Ever since the bursting of the South Sea Bubble in 1720 governments have recognised the need, in the interests of the investing public, for regulation of the financial services industry”. More
The plaintiff claims against all the defendants jointly and severally the one paying the others to be absolved, payment of a total sum of US$72 181.15, together with interest thereon at the prescribed rate calculated from the date of issue of the summons to the date of payment in full, and costs of suit on the attorney-client-scale. More
