On the 27th of January 2003, the plaintiff filed summons claiming payment in the sum of US$ 715,185.66, together with interest and costs on the higher scale. The defences proffered by the defendants are that the plaintiff is not entitled to judgement in United States dollars (US$) and that, in any event, they have already tendered payment in the Zimbabwe dollar ((ZW$) equivalent. More
The applicant is a political party registered in terms of the laws of Zimbabwe. It sought to participate in the 2013 harmonised elections. The Constitutional Court had, in Mawarire v Mugabe N.O. and Others CCZ 1/13, held that elections must be held before 31 July 2013 More
Applicants seek for the placement of the first respondent under corporate rescue in terms of s121 (a) financially distressed, it having failed to pay accounts in terms of its obligations, and that justice and equity requires that first respondent be resuscitated or rescued given that there are reasonable prospects for such rescue. (i) (ii) (iii) of the Insolvency Act (Chapter 6:07) as read with s124 and 131, on the grounds that it is
First respondent opposes the application on the basis that it is not in financial distress, it having paid off all its creditors, and its board is now... More
Applicant applied to this Court for the reinstatement of a abandoned matter i.e. LC/H/LRA/826/18. At the onset of oral argument 2nd Respondent raised a 2 points in limine which Applicant opposed. More
The application before me is a rei vindication action brought by the applicant against the respondent. The applicant desires an order from this court ordering the respondentto return two motor vehicles to it, viz a Nissan Sunny FB 14 1996 model bearing registration No. 829 – 998 W and a Nissan Sunny HB 12, bearing registration Number 505 – 933 B.
Two notable positions or defences come out of the respondent’s opposing affidavit and poorly drafted heads of argument. The respondent has argued that this court does not have the jurisdiction to meddle itself in labour-related disputes as he perceives... More
In the present matter an appeal and a review application were noted on 26th June 2012. On 17th December 2012 a notice of response was issued by the Registrar. Thereafter nothing seems to have happened from the applicant/appellant’s side. The applicant/appellant did not file the requisite Heads of Argument. On 9th September 2013 the 1st respondent made an application for the dismissal of the appeal in terms of Rule 19(3). The respondent was entitled to do so. Rule 19(3) provides;
“(3) Where heads of argument that are required to be lodged in terms of sub rule (1) or (2) are... More
This is an appeal against an arbitral award by Honourable B Mapisaunga
handed down on the 24th day of June 2012.
The background to this matter is that Appellants Moses Rushwaya, Biggie Mupanguri, Hitler Size, Patrick Chahwanda, Alfeyo Maxwell, Success Jonasi, WalterChigunda, James Gatsi and TinarwoKaponda were at all material times employed by Respondent on fixed term contracts terminating on 31st May 2011. Respondent is a non governmental organisation engaged in non profitactivities and dependent on donor funding for its activities. Appellants had been employed for varying periods from 1 year to 9 years on fixed term contracts which had... More
Respondents were employed by Appellant as engineers and managerial employees. In April 2012, the Respondents were served with transfer letters which they challenged resulting in an award being made by Arbitrator Shawatu on 9th May 2012 which was to the effect that:
“- the Respondent (Appellant) is hereby ordered to consult the claimants first concerning their wishes, concerns and personal circumstances, regarding the transfers before a discretion to transfer is made.
- The Respondent is further ordered that the decision to transfer the claimants
they had made is invalid and therefore without force or effect for the decision was made... More
On 27th August 2015 at Harare, the appellant’s Disciplinary Committee acquitted respondent of misconduct after a disciplinary hearing. The appellant then appealed to this court against the verdict. The respondent opposed the appeal. The appellant’s case was that the committee grossly erred in assessing the evidence and thus came to a wrong conclusion/verdict. More
This is an appeal against a decision by a Disciplinary Authority (DA) appointed by the appellant. (In this judgment the terms DA and Tribunal/Lower Tribunal will be used interchangeably). The respondent is an employee of the appellant. Misconduct charges were preferred against him. Disciplinary proceedings were conducted against him by the DA. At the conclusion of the proceedings the DA acquitted the respondent. The appellant was aggrieved by that outcome and has noted an appeal against that decision. More
The plaintiff is an incorporation whose business is the distribution of electricity to all parts of Zimbabwe. It is a subsidiary of ZESA Holdings (Pvt) Ltd charged specifically with electricity transmission and the provision of electricity services throughout the country. The defendant on the other hand is a statutory body constituted and operating in terms of the Urban Councils Act [Chapter 29:15] and is the local authority running the affairs of the town of Zvishavane which is situated in the Midlands Province of this country. More
The brief history of this case is that Respondent was employed on a three (3) month contract as a Loss Control Assistant. The contract was renewed many times. The Respondent is denying that he signed the last written contract which was going to expire on the 31st December 2011. He is alleging that he worked under a contract which did not state the date of expiry. Respondent has therefore submitted that he was unduly terminated. Conciliation proceedings could not produce a settlement and the matter was referred for arbitration before Honourable Arbitrator Chimhuka. More
This matter was set down on appeal at the instance of the appellant in a decision which was made in favour of the respondent employee. On the hearing date the respondent argued that the appeal was bad at law as it did not set out points of law as envisaged by section 98 (1c) of the Labour Act. It is only that preliminary point which is addressed by this judgment. More
This is an application for summary judgment in terms of Rule 64 of the High Court Rules of 1971 which provides as follows:
“64. Application for summary judgment
(1) Where the defendant has entered appearance to a summons, the plaintiff may, at any time before a pretrial conference is held, make a court application in terms of this rule for the court to enter summary judgment for what is claimed in the summons and costs. More
This is an application for rescission of a default judgment handed down by this Court on 5th June 2014.
The background to the matter is that the Applicant employer appealed to the Labour Court against an arbitral award made in favour of the Respondent employees in relation to the employee’s housing allowance and non-pensionable allowances. On the set down date for the appeal the Applicant’s legal practitioners did not attend court leading to the Court granting the default judgment in favour of the Respondent employees. More
