The application was placed before me as an application for quantification. The application is ‘purportedly’ made in terms of Section 89(1)a of the Labour Act as read with Rule 14 of the Labour Court Rules, 2017. There is a dispute between the parties as to the accuracy of the provision cited by Applicant. The issue will be determined below. Sufficient to note at this stage that the application is opposed by the Respondent. More
This is an appeal against an award by a labour officer. Before the appeal could be heard two preliminary points were taken on behalf of the respondent. These are that: (i) the appellants have not complied with Rule 11A of the Rules of this Court; and (ii) the prayer is defective. More
The applicant has been leasing stand 729 of the remainder of Greencroft in the district of Salisbury, otherwise known as 729 Lomagundi Road, Greencroft Harare, from the respondent by virtue of written lease agreement signed in October 2009. The said lease agreement terminated by expiration of time on 30 September 2012 but the applicant continued in occupation while paying rentals which were happily accepted by the respondent. More
The applicant is a Workers Union representing Zimbabwe National Water Authority Workers. It is a registered trade union. It originally represented Zinwa employees, but now represents Zinwa employees, and former Zinwa employees who were transferred to Local Authorities when Zinwa’s water function in local authorities was transferred to local authorities.
The respondent is the City of Harare one of the local authorities to which Zinwa transferred some of its workers.
Disputes arouse between the applicant and respondent, the relevant one being the deduction of trade union dues through the check-off system by the respondent from its water employees and their... More
On 22 September 2022, I heard the present application and after hearing submissions from the parties I made the following order:
“The matter is withdrawn and Case HC 694/22 is dismissed on account of the withdrawal.”
I have now been asked for the reasons for the said judgment. These are they.
The plaintiff issued summons against the defendants for payment of US$5 000 000.00 (Five Million United States Dollars) or its equivalent in Zimbabwean currency at the rate prevailing on the date of payment, interest on the amount calculated at the prescribed rate from the date of summons to the... More
This is an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against a judgment handed down on 24 October 2014.
The respondent was employed as a general hand by the applicant. He was charged of actual or attempted theft, embezzlement, fraud or bribery in terms of the code of conduct for the Welfare & Educational Institutions. He was found guilty and dismissed by a disciplinary committee. An internal appeal confirmed this.
I found that the respondent had been wrongly found guilty. I consequently ordered reinstatement without loss of salary and benefit from the date of unlawful dismissal with the... More
This is an appeal against the arbitrator’s decision in a labor dispute between the appellant employer and the respondent employee.
The background facts of the matter are that the employer employed the employee as a teacher on a contract with a probation period. Upon expiration of the probation period the employer issued a notice to the employee that it was not extending her contract. Aggrieved by the non-extension of her contract the employee took the matter up with the result that the arbitrator gave a determination in her favour. This prompted the employer to appeal against the arbitrator’s decision. More
: This matter for provisional sentence was set down on the roll for 16 May 2018. The defendant appeared in person. After hearing submissions, I granted provisional sentence in terms of the draft order. On 1 June 2018 the defendant filed a notice of appeal in the Supreme Court which was filed with the registrar of this court on 4 June 2018, hence the request for the reasons for the order made.
The plaintiff issued a summons for provisional sentence against the defendant. The summons is based on written acknowledgment of debt duly signed by the defendant on 8 January... More
The appellant sued the respondent for the return of a ROTRIX RainmakerIrrigator machine alternatively payment in the sum of $8 900.00 being the purchase price for the particular machine. More
Applicant has brought two combined applications which ordinarily should be filed separately. These are, a chamber application for condonation for the late filing of an application for the suspension of sale in execution of a dwelling and the actual application which has been brought in terms of r 71(14) which speaks to the suspension of the sale in execution of a dwelling. More
This is an application for the review of a retrenchment package approved by the 1st respondent in favour of the 2nd to the 52nd respondents.
The 2nd – 52nd respondents (retrenchees) were retrenched by the applicant in August 2015. Their retrenchment was approved by the second respondent, the Minister of Public Service, Labour and Social Welfare (the Minister) on 24 August 2015.
The terms and conditions of the approved retrenchment are as follows:
Terms and conditions of the Retrenchment
Service pay 1 month salary/year served
Severance pay 2 months salary
Relocation allowance 1 month salary
Period of payment requested by... More
This is an appeal against both conviction and sentence. After hearing both counsel on 31 October 2018 we directed that both counsel file supplementary heads of argument on some point of law as both counsel conceded that they were not prepared to make meaningful submissions on that point we had raised. The supplementary heads of argument were to be filed by 16 November, 2018. More
The applicant approached this court seeking confirmation of cancellation of an agreement of sale entered into between the parties and consequential relief following there from. More
On 15 September 2020 the respondents municipal police went to Stand 5221 Mutare Township and destroyed applicant’s temporary structure on the pretext that applicant had no authority to construct any structures at the site. Applicant had no approved building plans to build and the structure was thus illegal. The land development at the stand was not sanctioned by the local authority. Respondents officials went on to destroy the structure and took the materials specified in the draft order as detailed in the prayer spelt out above. The applicant contends in its papers that such an action constitutes spoliation and then... More
The matter at hand is centred on a piece of land Subdivision 2 of Lot 12 of Lot 15 NRA, Mwenezi, Masvingo (hereinafter called the land) that was compulsorily acquired under the Land Reform Programme and leased to the applicant.
The first respondent is the previous owner of the said land.First respondent has refused to vacate the said piece of land resulting in his prosecution on a charge of flouting the Gazetted Land(Consequential Provision Act [Chapter 20:28]. He was found guilty and sentenced to a fine. He appealedagainst that decision and the High Court reserved judgment on the case.
The... More
