On 3 March 2015 arbitrator B Matongera issued an arbitration award. He upheld respondents’ claim of unlawful dismissal from employment by appellant. He further ordered appellant to either reinstate respondents or pay them damages in lieu of reinstatement. Appellant then appealed to this court against the award. Respondents opposed the appeal. More
The applicant approached this court on an urgent basis seeking the following provisional order:
TERMS OF FINAL ORDER SOUGHT
That you show cause to this honourable court why a final order should not be made in the following terms:
That you show cause to this honourable court if any, why a final order should not be made in the following terms:
1. The first respondent and anyone in its employ or working in concert with or under its instructions be and are hereby interdicted from carrying on any form of mining activities on Welcomeback 18 Mine and from removing slag... More
The two applications were consolidated for the simple reason that they involve the same parties wherein the respondent, as the plaintiff, instituted actions against the applicant as the defendant, claiming certain amounts of money “being the outstanding balance owed to the plaintiff by the defendant for inter alia internet access provider services”. More
On the 10th November 2011 an issue was raised as to whether the grounds of appeal were proper grounds in line with the Supreme Court cases of:
SABLE CHEMICALS INDUSTRIES LIMITED VS DAVID PETER EASTER BOOK SC 18/10 (SABLE CHEMICALS)
And
NORMAN MUTSUTA, TONDERAI KATSANDE VS CAGAR (PRIVATE) LIMITED SC 47/09 (CAGAR)
In a nutshell the issue was do the grounds of appeal raise a question of law for the appeal to be properly before this Court?. More
This is an application for stay of execution. The first respondent was an executive dean in the Faculty of Commerce and Law of the applicant. At the end of his fixed term contract as dean, a dispute arose on his status. The parties failed to agree on whether he automatically assumed his former post or whether his contract of employment was terminated. Conciliation failed and the matter was referred to arbitration. More
At the hearing of this matter I upheld a point in limine and dismissed the application with costs. I indicated that the reasons for my decision would follow. These are they.
Applicant filed an application for condonation of late filing of an application for rescission of a default order and an application for rescission of a default order. On3 June 2015 this court had granted a chamber application in terms of Rule 19 (3) (a) of S.I. 59/2006 and dismissed applicant’s appeal with no order as to costs. The present application was filed on 31 July 2015. Respondent objected to... More
On 02 October 2024 two matters LC/H/764/24 and LC/H/785/24 were placed before this court. LC/H/785/24 pertained to grant of interim relief pending appeal. By consent interim relief was granted thus leaving for determination only appeal LC/H/764/24. This judgment therefore addresses only the issues raised by the appeal following the conclusion of the interim relief case by the consent order More
Applicant, a duly registered Trade Union in the Energy industry, has approached this court by way of a court application seeking a mandamus order, in the main, compelling the first respondent, a duly incorporated National Employment Council in the same sector, to admit it to its membership. In the alternative, that the 1st respondent be ordered to allow the applicant to negotiate as a petroleum subsector. The application is opposed. More
This is an appeal against an arbitral award. The grounds of appeal are as follows:
“1. The arbitrator misdirected himself at law and found that the Applicant did not comply with Section 3(1) of the Labour Relations General Conditions of Employment, (Termination of Employment) Regulations, 1985.
2. The Arbitrator erred at law by holding that the dispute had prescribed in terms of section 94(2) of the Labour (R)elations Act Chapter 28:01, when it had not, as the computation of one hundred and eighty days in terms of the Act itself incorporates the period on review in this matter. Therefore the... More
This is an appeal to the Supreme Court from a judgment of this Court.
The application was decided on the basis of the record. The grounds of appeal raise issues of fact. The Labour Act [Chapter 28:01] (The Act) provides in Section 92 E (1) that:
“An appeal on a question of law only shall lie to the Supreme Court from any decision of the Labour Court”
The grounds raised therefore are contrary to the provisions of The Act.
After considering the papers it is ordered that the application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court be and is... More
This is an application for reinstatement of a matter. This is a result of the matter having deemed abandoned by the Registrar because of Applicant’s non-compliance of the Labour Court Rules, 2017. More
Following submissions by the two legal practitioners I am enjoined to determine the aspect of urgency in this matter before considering the application on merits. This case has a well documented history dating back to December 2009, spilling over to 2010 and 2011. It is clear that the applicant fully appreciated the need to challenge the legislation on royalties from the time the figures were amended from 2,5% to 3,5 in 2009, and to 5% in 2010. More
On 22 July 2015 this Court granted an order in which it allowed respondent’s appeal in accordance with Rule 22 of the Labour Court Rules 2006, (Statutory Instrument 59 of 2006). Applicant has applied for rescission of that judgment. Respondent has raised a point in limine stating that appellant is disabled from making such application due to the nature of the judgment granted. Mr Gama submitted that when the parties appeared before the Court, applicant’s Counsel applied to the Court for condonation for late filing of the Response and the Court did not grant the application and proceeded to deal... More
This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court (the court a quo) wherein it dismissed an application for a declaratory order sought by the appellant. More
: On the 4th of June 2021, I gave an order ex tempore as follows.
1. The application be and is hereby granted.
2. The respondent and all those claiming occupation through him be and is hereby ordered to vacate the property called Lot 2736 Core House Turf, Ngezi within seven (7) days of the date of being served with the order.
3. In the event that the respondent fails or refuses to vacate as aforesaid, the Sheriff or his lawful Deputy be and is hereby empowered to evict the respondent and those claiming title through him from Lot 2736... More
