The first defendant filed a combined special plea and exception to the plaintiff’s summons and declaration. It implored the court to uphold the special plea and the exception, and consequently to dismiss the plaintiff’s claim with costs on the attorney and client scale. The plaintiff opposed both the special plea and the exception. The plaintiff is a trade union established in terms of the Labour Act . It represents the interests of employees of the first defendant, a local authority established in terms of the Rural District Councils Act. The second defendant is a designated agent in the Employment Council... More
In the two matters the applicant seek to register the decision of a designated agent for purposes of registration. Under HC 68/23 the applicant a legal persona was granted a final determination in its favour against the 1st respondent for payment of US$7 568.30. Under HC 157/23 an order in the sum of US$5 874.20 was granted in favour of the applicant by a designated agent, the 2nd respondent in the matter.
The only issue for determination is whether this court should revert to its inherent jurisdiction to register a designated agent’s decision for purposes of enforcement. The application was... More
In November 2021 there was a deluge of chamber applications to this court for the registration of determinations or awards issued by designated agents employed by the National Employment Council for Rural District Councils [RDC]. In all of them, the applicant was the Zimbabwe Rural District Council Workers’ Union, a trade union. The first and second respondents would respectively be the particular rural district council concerned and the respective designated agent who would have issued the determination. Except for the names of the RDCs; the names of the designated agents, and the amounts of the awards, the applications were identical... More
MAVANGIRA JA:
[1] This is an appeal against the decision of the High Court that set aside the appellant’s decision to cancel the ordinary level examinations results of the respondents’ daughters in all the subjects that they had sat for. More
This is an application for a declaratur, in terms of which the applicant seeks the following order:
1. The application for a declaratur be and hereby succeeds.
2. It be and is hereby declared that the respondent’s claims for payment against the applicant, which claims are based on the architectural designs and works that were carried out and submitted by the respondent to the applicant in the year 2007, arising from, out of and in connection with the agreement that was entered into by and between the applicant and respondent on or about 24 March 2006, have been extinguished by... More
This is an appeal against the decision of Registrar of Labour allowing the registration of second respondent in terms of section 45 of the Labour Act, [Chapter 28:01]. Appellant is dissatisfied with the decision and has appealed to this Court. Appellant’s grounds of appeal are as follows:
1. The Registrar erred at law by disregarding the general rule enshrined in section 45 (i) (iv) of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01] on the desirability of reducing to the least possible member, the number of entities with which employees and employers have to negotiate.
2. The Registrar misdirected herself and erred at... More
The plaintiff is described in the summons and declaration as a company incorporated in terms of the laws of Zimbabwe. The defendant did not take issue with the description of the plaintiff as a company. A reading of the subsequent filed pleadings clearly show that the plaintiff is a union. As such the plaintiff must be an unincorporated association since the citation does not include the references, “private limited” or “limited” as required in law where a company is involved. The correct reference is important as it informs the court of the plaintiff’s locus standi and legal standing to bring... More
This is an application for the setting aside of an arbitral award in terms of Article 34 of the Model Law (Schedule to the Arbitration Act [Chapter 7.15] which provides in Sub-Article 2 as follows:
“Any arbitral award may be set aside by the High Court only if-
(a) …..
(b) the High court finds, that –
(i) the subject-matter of the dispute is not capable of settlement by arbitration under the law of Zimbabwe, or
(ii) the award is in conflict with the public policy of Zimbabwe.” More
It is quite clear from the facts presented before me that the leadership of the 1st applicant, the Zimbabwe Sugar Milling Workers Union (the Union) is hotly contested. There are two factions claiming to be the legitimate Executive Committee members of the Union. These two factions have been for sometime now engaged in bruising legal battles apparently taking no prisoners. More
The respondent in casu argued that he was on a contract with no limit of time and he had been unfairly dismissed with no notice given before the termination of his contract of employment. More
In this application the following relief is sought;-
“It is ordered that:-
1. The award of quantification of damages made by the second respondent on 28 October 2011 be and is hereby set aside.
2. The first respondent pay the costs of suit.” More
Section 3 of the Class Actions Act [Cap 8:17] provides as follows:-
“Application for leave to institute class action
(1) Subject to this section, the High Court may on application grant leave for the institution of a class action on behalf of any class of persons.
(2) An application for the institution of a class action –
(a) may be made by any person, whether or not he is a member of the class of persons concerned; and
(b) shall be made in the form and manner prescribed in rules of court. More
This is an appeal against an arbitral award.
The respondent was employed by the appellant as its human resources manager from 1 July 2012. The contract was to run to the 30th of June 2015. On the 28th of April 2014, the appellant was however charged in terms of the National Employment Code of Conduct SI 15 of 2006, of gross incompetency or inefficiency in the performance of her work being a charge under Section 4 (f). More
