On 3 September 2012 this Court dismissed Respondent’s appeal against a decision by the Applicant to dismiss him from employment on the basis of misconduct. On 9 January 2013 Respondent applied for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against that decision. On 11 February 2013 Applicant filed its opposition to the application and served it on the Respondent on the same date. In terms of Rule 19 Respondent was supposed to file Heads of Argument within fourteen days of receiving the response. That was not done. Instead on 16 April 2013, way after the fourteen days within which Heads... More
This matter was placed before me as an application for the setting aside of an arbitral award in terms of Article 34 (2)(b)(ii) of the Arbitration Act [Chapter 7:15]. The award was rendered by the 2nd respondent on the 8th of June 2023. The applicant contends that the award conflicts with public policy in three main respects. (1) The award is contrary to the terms of the agreement between the parties which is binding on them and that the second respondent attempted to rewrite the contract for the parties, (2) the second respondent failed to consider submissions by the applicant... More
By order dated 7 November 2018 the Honourable Justice Foroma directed that these three matters be consolidated and be heard by this court or any other judge without delay. Matter HC 7239/18 is a court application for rescission of default judgment granted by PHIRI J in motion court in HC 6220/18 in favour of Mr Washington Mavunga and against Zimbabwe More
The respondent was employed by the appellant as a revenue officer. He was charged with an act of misconduct in terms of the appellant’s code of conduct (the code) for : ‘Gross negligence in the execution of duties.’ According to the applicable code this falls under ‘Group D-Most Serious Offences’. The matter was later referred to a labour officer in terms of S101(6) of the Labour Act Chapter 28:01 (the Act).On 11December 2020 the Labour Officer, L Nhandara , made a determination that the appellant had wrongly charged the respondent. In the circumstances the Labour Officer ordered the appellant to... More
On 24 July 2013 the applicant and the 1st respondent appeared before Professor LovemoreMadhuku (the Arbitrator) and consented to the following award:-
“Award
1. That the respondent be and is hereby ordered to do everything reasonably required to ensure that ZINARA’s offer of employment to all “tollgate staff” which will be effective from 1 October 2013 is on terms of permanent employment.
2. That each party pays 50% of the arbitration fees”. More
This is an appeal against an arbitral award in which the terms of reference were:
1. whether or not the Respondent is unilaterally and clandestinely transferring members of ZIMRATU.
2. whether or not Respondent has a transfer policy in place.
3. whether or not the Respondent is unilaterally transferring members of the workers committee and trade unions and thus crippling the operations of the workers committee and the trade union.
4. determine the appropriate remedy. More
The applicant is a body corporate established in terms of the laws of Zimbabwe. The respondent is employed by the applicant as a Revenue Specialist. The respondent was charged with acts of misconduct in that she failed to carry out a proper clearance of a motor vehicle which is a D25 offence in terms of the applicant’s code of conduct. On 24 January 2020 the dispute was referred to a Labour Officer for determination of the alleged misconduct as the applicant’s disciplinary committee could not sit. More
This is an appeal against the decision of the High Court, Bulawayo (the court a quo) which granted an order compelling the appellant to reimburse the respondent the sum of USD 63 378.00 being duty for the importation of a motor vehicle. More
This was an appeal against the whole judgment of the Labour Court delivered on 17 May 2012. 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 appellant seeks the vacation of the whole judgment handed down by the Special Court for Income Tax Appeals (the court a quo) that was handed down on 23 December 2020. The court a quo set aside the amended income tax assessments issued to and the penalty imposed against the respondent by the appellant on 30 October 2017 for the 2014 tax year and on 1 November 2017 for the 2015 tax year. More
This is an appeal against the whole judgment of the High Court (the court a quo) which granted a declaratory order in favour of the respondent to the effect that the appellant could not issue replacement notices of revised tax assessments. This is because the revised assessments had been invalidated and set aside in an earlier decision of this Court. More
The applicant is a statutory body, established as such in terms of s 3 of the Revenue Authority Act [Cap 23:11]. It is established as a body corporate, capable of suing and being sued in its own name and, subject to the Act, of performing all acts that bodies corporate may by law perform. Section 4 of the same Act defines its powers as being:
a) to act for the state in assessing, collecting, and enforcing the payment of all revenues;
b) to advise the Minister on matters relating to the raising and collection of revenues; and
c) to perform... More
The Notice of Appeal in casu was served on the respondent on the 11th April 2024. In terms of Rule 19(2) of the Labour Court Rules SI 150/17 a respondent is required to file his/her response within ten (10) days of receipt of the appeal. Thus, the respondent in casu was required to file his response on or by 26 April 2024. According to his own word he tried to file the response on that date but failed due to “a technical challenge.” He then filed a Response which was uploaded on the 6th May 2024. That is the only... More
Acting on reasonable suspicion that the second and third respondents’ three drivers were entering Zimbabwe with loaded fuel, the applicant placed the respondents’ three trucks and their contents under notices of seizure. More
This is an appeal against the judgment rendered by the Magistrates Court in which an order was made for the appellant to unconditionally release a motor vehicle horse, registration number JTC043MP and two trailers registered under numbers JKX559MP and JKX583MP and to pay costs on a higher scale. More
