This is an appeal by the appellant/employer against a decision made against it. Such decision was made by a hearing authority appointed by the employer (appellant). The hearing authority is not in the employ of the appellant. More
The appellant and respondent are embroiled in a labour dispute. When the matter was placed before me it could not proceed on merits, the respondent raised two preliminary points that the appellant has dirty hands therefore should not be allowed to prosecute its matter. Secondly that the grounds of appeal do not raise questions of law. More
This is a chamber application for condonation of non-compliance with the rules and extension of time within which to apply for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court made in terms of r 64 as read with r 43 (3) and r 60 (2) of the Supreme Court Rules, 2018 (“the Rules”). More
This is an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against the decision of this court that was handed down on 15 May 2015. This court in its judgment ordered as follows:
“1. The arbitral award issued by Honourable G Nashobe and is hereby set aside and in its place the following order is made:
(i) The claim for the payment of 5% outstanding salary allowances be and is hereby dismissed.
(ii) The claim for the payment of the engineer’s allowance to other managers in D3 and D4 be and is hereby dismissed.
(iii) The appellant be and... More
This is an urgent application for a temporary interdict to stop the respondent which is the trade union which represents employees of the applicant from proceeding with a collective job action pending determination of an application for a show cause order instituted by the applicant in terms of the relevant provisions of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01]. The application is opposed by the respondent. More
The matter was placed before me as an appeal hearing. At the commencement of this hearing the Applicant (Respondent in the main matter)raised a preliminary point. The point was that the Respondent having filed his appeal against the Applicant’s Appeals Committee to this Court, the Applicant having in turn filed its notice of opposition in the matter (on 12th October 2011) the Respondent then filed its Heads of Argument on (23rd September 2013) almost two years after the notice of opposition. It was Applicant’s position that by virtue of Rule 19 of the Labour Court Rules,Statutory Instrument 59 of 2006the... More
Please take note that the final order on the last page being page 13 of the judgment handed down on the 26th of June, 2024 under reference LC/H/279/24 carries the following omissions;
i. For the purpose of clarity, point number (v) shall be inserted into the judgement as the final point in the order and it is to read;
“(v) The decision by the Disciplinary Authority be and is hereby upheld
in its entirety.” More
This is an appeal from the decision of an Arbitrator who found that the termination of the Respondents’ Contract of employment by the Appellant (ZESA) was unlawful and he ordered that ZESA should retrench the Respondents.
The facts of the matter are that the Respondents were employed by ZESA on three months fixed term contracts. These contracts were renewed for periods varying between 2 and 4 years, on 4 August 2010, ZESA gave notice that the contracts would not be renewed. The Respondents’ were dissatisfied with the termination of their contracts and they claimed that they had been unfairly dismissed. More
CHIGUMBA J: Plaintiff issued summons against the defendants, on 24 March 2011, claiming:
1. An order declaring that Plaintiff is the lawful owner of stand 449 Borrowdale Brooke Township of stand 137 Borrowdale Brooke township (hereinafter referred to as the property in question).
2. An order setting aside the caveat placed on Deed of transfer number 4012/2010 at the instance of the second defendant.
3. An order compelling the first defendant to take all necessary steps required in order to effect transfer to the Plaintiff of the property situate in the district of Salisbury called stand 449 Borrowdale Brooke township... More
This was an appeal against the whole judgment of the High Court delivered on 13 May 2015. After perusing the record and hearing the submissions of the parties, this Court allowed the appeal and indicated that the reasons would be availed in due course. More
The dispute in this application arises from the disputed ownership, control and management of the first respondent company. The first respondent is a duly incorporated and registered company in accordance with the laws of Zimbabwe. The company carries on the business of inter alia manufacturing, importation and exportation of explosives. Its principal place of business is stand 16306 Alaska Mine,Road, Chirorodziva Heights, Stratchoma Township Chinhoyi.
The first applicant, second, third and fourth respondents are foreign nationals of Chinese origin. The second respondent is resident in China and is Director of the first respondent.The third and fourthrespondents as well as the... More
This is an application for a mandatory interdict. Applicant seeks an order in the following terms:
1. The application for compelling Order be and is hereby granted.
2.The Respondents be and are hereby ordered to release the Deawoo Excavator at Number 32 Courtney, Ballantyne Park, Borrowdale.
3. The Respondents are prohibited from denying Applicant access to Courtney, Ballantyne Park, Borrowdale Number 32 for purposes of collection of the Deawoo Excavator.
4. The Respondents to pay costs on higher scale. More
The applicant filed an application seeking an order for substituted service in terms of Order 6 Rule 46. The facts of the matter are as set out in the applicants founding affidavit and may be summarised as follows: More
