On 10 January 2020 the respondent filed an exparte application for a spoliation order at Mutare Provincial Magistrate’s Court on the basis that on 6 January 2020 the current appellants had ordered their employees to invade a commercial stand housing a service station where the respondent was the tenant and operator. Respondent attached a lease agreement to his application dated 14 March 2019. When the respondent’s employees invaded the service station they disjointed fuel pump units, parked a truck in front of a diesel fuel tank blocking the current respondent’s deliveries. On 9 January appellant’s staff allegedly repossessed the service... More
This is an urgent chamber application in terms of s 92 (c) of the Labour Court Act [Cap 28:01] as read with rule 33 of the Labour Court Rule S I 15/06 wherein the applicant is applying the court to alter its judgment of 22 November 2013 on the basis that the judgment in question was made in error. More
This is an application for correction of an order in terms of section 92 C (1) (c ) of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01]. On 12 August 2015 this court granted the following order:
“1. The applicant having filed an application in terms of rule 19 (3)(a) of SI 59/2006, the application be and is hereby granted.
2. The respondent being barred for non-compliance with rule 19 (2) (ii) of S I 59/2006, the application under reference LC/H/APP/998/14 be and is hereby granted.” More
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
The applicants seek a declaratory order in terms of s 85(1) of the Constitution as read with s 14 of the High Court Act [Chapter 7:06]. They argue that because the Constitution in s 65, entrenched the right to collective bargaining and to organize, the current scenario where public servants are precluded from doing so is not only untenable but also unconstitutional. They contend that the perception that the right to collective bargaining is being implemented is a facade because what is being undertaken currently is simply a consultative process based on the provisions of the repealed Constitution. That they... More
