This is an appeal against part of the judgment of the Labour Court wherein the appellant was partially successful. In particular, the appellant challenges those parts of the judgment relating to the payment of school fees and fuel allowances and the allocation of personal issue motor vehicles to certain members of the respondent association. More
The respondent was employed by the appellant until 31 October 2013 when parties mutually terminated the employment contract. A dispute ensued in respect of the package payable to the respondent. More
A brief history of the matter should help put it into perspective. The respondent won an arbitral award handed down by Arbitrator A.J. Manase sometime in July 2013, in terms of which his retrenchment by the applicant company was nullified.
On 23 September 2013, the applicant filed an appeal in this Court, against the arbitral award. On 20 November 2013, a default judgment was issued by Honourable Judge Murasi, in terms of which applicant’s appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution. More
This is an appeal against an arbitral award handed down on 22 September, 2011. The Respondent was employed by the Appellant as a Messenger from April 2006 under a Grade B1 salary. In April 2010 the Respondent was transferred from the Head Office to work at the Training Centre as a Workshop Assistant. It is common cause that the person he replaced at the Training Centre took his job as a Messenger and was downgraded from Grade B3 to B1. More
The appellant appeals against the whole judgment of the High Court (the court a quo) dated 17 November 2021. The court a quo found that the arbitral award by second respondent (the arbitrator), dated 2 December 2020, was not in conflict with the public policy of Zimbabwe. On 2 December 2020, the arbitrator held that he had the jurisdiction to determine the quantification of damages in lieu of his earlier arbitral award against the appellant for specific performance that had been registered by the High Court on 10 June 2020. Consequent upon assuming jurisdiction, the arbitrator further directed the appellant... More
This is an application for review of the first respondent’s decision on an interlocutory issue. The parties appeared before the first respondent, a labour officer, on a matter referred to the labour officer in terms of section 101 (6) of the Labour Act, Chapter 28:01 [the Act]. The applicant herein raised points in liminebefore the Labour officer and the decision went against it. More
This is an appeal by the appellant/employer against a decision made against it. Such decision was made by a hearing authority appointed by the employer (appellant). The hearing authority is not in the employ of the appellant. More
The appellant and respondent are embroiled in a labour dispute. When the matter was placed before me it could not proceed on merits, the respondent raised two preliminary points that the appellant has dirty hands therefore should not be allowed to prosecute its matter. Secondly that the grounds of appeal do not raise questions of law. More
This is a chamber application for condonation of non-compliance with the rules and extension of time within which to apply for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court made in terms of r 64 as read with r 43 (3) and r 60 (2) of the Supreme Court Rules, 2018 (“the Rules”). More
This is an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against the decision of this court that was handed down on 15 May 2015. This court in its judgment ordered as follows:
“1. The arbitral award issued by Honourable G Nashobe and is hereby set aside and in its place the following order is made:
(i) The claim for the payment of 5% outstanding salary allowances be and is hereby dismissed.
(ii) The claim for the payment of the engineer’s allowance to other managers in D3 and D4 be and is hereby dismissed.
(iii) The appellant be and... More
This is an urgent application for a temporary interdict to stop the respondent which is the trade union which represents employees of the applicant from proceeding with a collective job action pending determination of an application for a show cause order instituted by the applicant in terms of the relevant provisions of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01]. The application is opposed by the respondent. More
The matter was placed before me as an appeal hearing. At the commencement of this hearing the Applicant (Respondent in the main matter)raised a preliminary point. The point was that the Respondent having filed his appeal against the Applicant’s Appeals Committee to this Court, the Applicant having in turn filed its notice of opposition in the matter (on 12th October 2011) the Respondent then filed its Heads of Argument on (23rd September 2013) almost two years after the notice of opposition. It was Applicant’s position that by virtue of Rule 19 of the Labour Court Rules,Statutory Instrument 59 of 2006the... More
Please take note that the final order on the last page being page 13 of the judgment handed down on the 26th of June, 2024 under reference LC/H/279/24 carries the following omissions;
i. For the purpose of clarity, point number (v) shall be inserted into the judgement as the final point in the order and it is to read;
“(v) The decision by the Disciplinary Authority be and is hereby upheld
in its entirety.” More
