At the commencement of oral argument the respondent made an oral application for condonation of the late filing of his Heads of Argument. The appellant did not oppose the application. In the interests of justice I proceeded to grant the application.
On 1 August 2014 arbitrator J Simango made an arbitration award. She ordered the appellant to pay the respondent a total sum of $1 549-77 in respect of acting allowance and bonus. The appellant then appealed to this court against the award. The respondent opposed the appeal. The grounds of appeal were four-fold. However I consider that the first... More
This is an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. On 4 March 2016 judgment was handed down upholding a point in limine that the purported appeal is not premised on and does not raise any question of law. More
At the hearing of this matter, the respondent raised a point in limine which is the subject of this judgment.
The appellant appealed against an arbitral award in favour of respondent. Respondent was engaged by appellant as a journalist for a period of three years. The parties did not reduce their relationship into writing. In 2014 appellant terminated the parties’ relationship. Respondent was aggrieved and referred the matter to conciliation and thereafter arbitration. The arbitrator held that there was a contract of employment between the parties which was not terminated lawfully. He ordered the reinstatement of the respondent with no... More
On 3 March 2015 arbitrator B Matongera issued an arbitration award. He upheld respondents’ claim of unlawful dismissal from employment by appellant. He further ordered appellant to either reinstate respondents or pay them damages in lieu of reinstatement. Appellant then appealed to this court against the award. Respondents opposed the appeal. More
The applicant approached this court on an urgent basis seeking the following provisional order:
TERMS OF FINAL ORDER SOUGHT
That you show cause to this honourable court why a final order should not be made in the following terms:
That you show cause to this honourable court if any, why a final order should not be made in the following terms:
1. The first respondent and anyone in its employ or working in concert with or under its instructions be and are hereby interdicted from carrying on any form of mining activities on Welcomeback 18 Mine and from removing slag... More
The two applications were consolidated for the simple reason that they involve the same parties wherein the respondent, as the plaintiff, instituted actions against the applicant as the defendant, claiming certain amounts of money “being the outstanding balance owed to the plaintiff by the defendant for inter alia internet access provider services”. More
On the 10th November 2011 an issue was raised as to whether the grounds of appeal were proper grounds in line with the Supreme Court cases of:
SABLE CHEMICALS INDUSTRIES LIMITED VS DAVID PETER EASTER BOOK SC 18/10 (SABLE CHEMICALS)
And
NORMAN MUTSUTA, TONDERAI KATSANDE VS CAGAR (PRIVATE) LIMITED SC 47/09 (CAGAR)
In a nutshell the issue was do the grounds of appeal raise a question of law for the appeal to be properly before this Court?. More
This is an application for stay of execution. The first respondent was an executive dean in the Faculty of Commerce and Law of the applicant. At the end of his fixed term contract as dean, a dispute arose on his status. The parties failed to agree on whether he automatically assumed his former post or whether his contract of employment was terminated. Conciliation failed and the matter was referred to arbitration. More
At the hearing of this matter I upheld a point in limine and dismissed the application with costs. I indicated that the reasons for my decision would follow. These are they.
Applicant filed an application for condonation of late filing of an application for rescission of a default order and an application for rescission of a default order. On3 June 2015 this court had granted a chamber application in terms of Rule 19 (3) (a) of S.I. 59/2006 and dismissed applicant’s appeal with no order as to costs. The present application was filed on 31 July 2015. Respondent objected to... More
Applicant, a duly registered Trade Union in the Energy industry, has approached this court by way of a court application seeking a mandamus order, in the main, compelling the first respondent, a duly incorporated National Employment Council in the same sector, to admit it to its membership. In the alternative, that the 1st respondent be ordered to allow the applicant to negotiate as a petroleum subsector. The application is opposed. More
This is an appeal against an arbitral award. The grounds of appeal are as follows:
“1. The arbitrator misdirected himself at law and found that the Applicant did not comply with Section 3(1) of the Labour Relations General Conditions of Employment, (Termination of Employment) Regulations, 1985.
2. The Arbitrator erred at law by holding that the dispute had prescribed in terms of section 94(2) of the Labour (R)elations Act Chapter 28:01, when it had not, as the computation of one hundred and eighty days in terms of the Act itself incorporates the period on review in this matter. Therefore the... More
This is an appeal to the Supreme Court from a judgment of this Court.
The application was decided on the basis of the record. The grounds of appeal raise issues of fact. The Labour Act [Chapter 28:01] (The Act) provides in Section 92 E (1) that:
“An appeal on a question of law only shall lie to the Supreme Court from any decision of the Labour Court”
The grounds raised therefore are contrary to the provisions of The Act.
After considering the papers it is ordered that the application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court be and is... More
This is an application for reinstatement of a matter. This is a result of the matter having deemed abandoned by the Registrar because of Applicant’s non-compliance of the Labour Court Rules, 2017. More
Following submissions by the two legal practitioners I am enjoined to determine the aspect of urgency in this matter before considering the application on merits. This case has a well documented history dating back to December 2009, spilling over to 2010 and 2011. It is clear that the applicant fully appreciated the need to challenge the legislation on royalties from the time the figures were amended from 2,5% to 3,5 in 2009, and to 5% in 2010. More
On 22 July 2015 this Court granted an order in which it allowed respondent’s appeal in accordance with Rule 22 of the Labour Court Rules 2006, (Statutory Instrument 59 of 2006). Applicant has applied for rescission of that judgment. Respondent has raised a point in limine stating that appellant is disabled from making such application due to the nature of the judgment granted. Mr Gama submitted that when the parties appeared before the Court, applicant’s Counsel applied to the Court for condonation for late filing of the Response and the Court did not grant the application and proceeded to deal... More
