Before me is an application by the Zimbabwe National Road Administration (ZINARA) for rei vindication in respect of a Toyota Hilux (double cab) motor vehicle, registration number AEC 7539 (“the vehicle”). The application is opposed. The factual background giving rise to the dispute is that in May 2010, the applicant and the respondent entered into a contract of employment. The respondent was employed as IT Manager of the applicant. The contract appears in the record on pages 8-10 marked Annexure “B”. Clause 6(b) of this contract reads as follows: More
Before me is an application by the Zimbabwe National Road Administration (ZINARA) for rei vindication in respect of a Toyota Hilux (double cab) motor vehicle, registration number AEC 6465 (“the vehicle”). The application is opposed. The factual background giving rise to the dispute is as follows: sometime in March 2010, the applicant and the respondent entered into a contract of employment. The respondent was employed as regional engineer of the applicant, as evidenced by the contract marked Annexure “B”, which appears on pp 8-10 of the record. Clause 6 (b) of this contract reads as follows: More
[1]This is an application for condonation for late noting of an appeal. It is opposed.
The following are some of the requirements which are considered in order for an application of this nature to succeed:
a)The extent of the delay More
On 17th July, 2024 Arbitrator J Murakata issued an award which ordered appellant to pay respondent (its ex-employee) US$23,000.00 as outstanding school fees. The award also declared that respondent is entitled to purchase the ‘organisation vehicle’ from appellant. Appellant then appealed the award to this Court in terms of section 98 (10) of the Labour Act Chapter 28:01. Respondent opposed the appeal. More
This is an appeal against the Arbitral Award that was handed down by Honourable Arbitrator A.J. Manase on 1st February 2013. In this award the Arbitrator ordered that Appellant should pay its employees a housing allowance calculated at 50% of the basic pay. The total figure of the housing allowance was $12 894 294 291,92. More
Respondents were employed by the appellant in various capacities. Following an audit at appellant’s work place, it was discovered that a lot of property was missing. This led to the arrest of the three respondents and several other employees at the appellant’s work place. Disciplinary proceedings were brought against the three respondents and they were found guilty and a recommendation for their dismissal was made. Respondents appealed to the Appeals Officer who confirmed the decision of the Disciplinary Committee. The respondents took the matter to the labour officer and the matter was referred to arbitration. The arbitrator found in favour... More
This matter has been outstanding for a long time.One of the reasons for delay in finilazing it was interlocutory matters. In order to bring finality, thisCourt (Muzofa J) on14 May 2013 made the following order:
“1. The appeal be and is hereby upheld.
2. The matter be and is hereby referred to the Provincial Labour Officer for him/her within ten days of this order to appoint a different arbitrator to hear the matter on the merits.”
The above order meant to obviate any further interlocutory applications either before the arbitrator or before the court. More
On 16 December 2015, the plaintiff issued summons against Forester (with one v ) Estates Private Limited claiming payment of the sum of US71 548-00 in respect of water sold, supplied and delivered to the defendant by it in terms of an agreement entered into between the parties. More
The applicant in this case is Zimbabwe National Water Authority (ZINWA), a body corporate established in terms of the Zimbabwe National Water Authority Act [Chapter 20:25]. The respondent is Jutstein Mapanzure. He was formerly employed by the applicant. He rose through the applicant’s organogram. . Sometime during their employment relationship, the respondent misconducted himself. The applicant said it then decided to prefer misconduct charges against him. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated but midstream through the process the respondent thought he had seen reason and through his erstwhile legal representatives found it prudent to ditch the confrontation approach. He found it wiser... More
[1] The applicant in this matter seeks an order to set aside an arbitral ruling
[2] issued by the second respondent on 16 May 2024 in the arbitration proceedings between the applicant and the first respondent. Specifically, the applicant prays for the substitution of the arbitrator’s finding that she had jurisdiction to hear the dispute between the applicant and the first respondent with an order that the arbitral tribunal did not have jurisdiction to hear the dispute. More
At the commencement of oral argument the respondent made an oral application for condonation of the late filing of his Heads of Argument. The appellant did not oppose the application. In the interests of justice I proceeded to grant the application.
On 1 August 2014 arbitrator J Simango made an arbitration award. She ordered the appellant to pay the respondent a total sum of $1 549-77 in respect of acting allowance and bonus. The appellant then appealed to this court against the award. The respondent opposed the appeal. The grounds of appeal were four-fold. However I consider that the first... More
This is an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. On 4 March 2016 judgment was handed down upholding a point in limine that the purported appeal is not premised on and does not raise any question of law. More
Applicant applied for this Court’s leave to file a supplementary affidavit in the matter
pending under reference LCH 36/25. The application is provided for under Rule 14(5) of the Labour Court Rules, 2017. Respondent opposed the application.
The basis of the application is set out in applicant’s founding affidavit as More
At the hearing of this matter, the respondent raised a point in limine which is the subject of this judgment.
The appellant appealed against an arbitral award in favour of respondent. Respondent was engaged by appellant as a journalist for a period of three years. The parties did not reduce their relationship into writing. In 2014 appellant terminated the parties’ relationship. Respondent was aggrieved and referred the matter to conciliation and thereafter arbitration. The arbitrator held that there was a contract of employment between the parties which was not terminated lawfully. He ordered the reinstatement of the respondent with no... More
