This is an opposed application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against the decision of this Court. The Applicant who was the Respondent in the main matter failed to file Heads of Argument within the prescribed time in terms of Rule 19 (3) (2) (a) (ii) of the Labour Court Rules. The applicant was barred in terms of Rule 19 (3) (b) of the rules and an order was issued in favour of the Respondent. More
The applicant’s members have been employed by the first respondent. On the 5th of February 2014 the employees were awarded $59 246-85 by Hon N.A. Mutongoreni, the Arbitrator. On the 24th of September 2015 the award was registered by this court under HC5433/15. The second respondent executed the order but could not collect the whole amount, a balance of $8 302.72 remained outstanding. The applicant reinstructed the Deputy Sheriff for a second chance. The first respondent filed an urgent chamber application on the 4th of August 2017 under HC 7246/17 for an interdict. On the 9th of August 2017 the... More
The appellant was employed by the respondent on a contract of employment without limit of time in May 2004. In March 2007 the respondent decided to place all its managerial employees on fixed term contracts. His position and responsibilities as Chief Internal Auditor did not change. The fixed term contract was to run for a period of three years. More
On 1 July, 2011, the Appellant was observed by C. Mudyiwa and K. Chimbangu coming from the Traditional Canteen, holding a parcel wrapped with uniforms. Mr Mudyiwa told K. Chimbangu his Supervisor to follow him to the changing room. When Chimbangu got to the changing room, he observed that the parcel which the Appellant had been holding were 2x2kg packets of sugar. The Appellant was asked where he got the sugar from by Mr Mudyiwa and he said he took it from the Traditional Canteen. More
On 4 September 2013, this matter was on the unopposed roll for motion court. The applicant appeared in person. There was no appearance by any of the respondents. Incourt I raised three concerns with the applicant:what really was the nature of the application as the papers before me were incoherent and seemed to disclose no cause of action?Who were all those parties cited as respondents as none of them had properly been described in the application? And had service been properly effected on the respondents since from the applicant’s affidavits of service it appeared that the documents had simply been... More
The applicant is the owner of a certain piece of immovable property known as Number 1212 Marlborough, Township of Marlborough situate in the district of Salisbury. He mortgaged the property to the first respondent in respect of a loan extended to the fifth respondent by the first respondent. More
This is a chamber application for dismissal of a court application for want of prosecution in terms of r 59 (16) (b) of the High Court Rules, 2021. The said rule gives this court a discretion to dismiss a court application where an applicant has failed to set down a case after the period of month has elapsed after the filing of an answering affidavit. More
The applicant approached the court seeking for eviction of the respondents, its former employees. The respondents opposed the application on the basis that the applicant had not fulfilled a condition precedent to the eviction in terms of the law in particular SI 116/2014. The respondents argued that their terminal benefits were still outstanding. More
The applicant applies for bail pending appeal. The applicant was found in possession of 1,35 grams of gold valued at US$49-69. He was a first offender who pleaded guilty to the offence. The State was not opposed to bail and conceded that the sentence imposed is harsh and did not support it. The court considers that the concession is not proper. The court is not bound by the concession of the State counsel and will only accede to such concession where it is properly made. The applicant was charged of possessing gold without a licence in terms of s 3(1)... More
This application came by way of a chamber application.
Applicant holds an offer letter wherein he was offered Stand 47 in Mont Dor South Farm, Shurugwi measuring 4 hectares. The offer letter is dated 9 February 2010. According to the founding affidavit the following transpired. More
This is an application for review. The following are grounds for review.
‘1.The Disciplinary Authority lacks jurisdiction to preside over the matter since the applicable code of conduct sets up an appropriate disciplinary committee with jurisdiction and which is different from this disciplinary authority. More
