Before me is an application for condonation of late noting of an appeal.
On 3 June 2013 the respondents obtained an arbitral award in their favour. The applicant lodged an appeal against that award on 10 June 2013 in case number LC/H.412/13. That appeal was struck off the roll on the basis that the applicant had irregularly cited respondents as Chenayi Nyaguse and “12 Ors”. Consequently the appeal was defective. That judgment was handed down on 14 March 2014. More
This matter was set down as an application for condonation of late noting of an appeal. Before me are two points in limine that were raised.
Respondents obtained an arbitral award in their favour whose operative part reads as follows;
“1. The charges against the claimants (respondents in casu) are calculated to victimize the claimants. They are illegal and must be stayed.
2. The respondents (applicant in casu) is committing unfair labour practice.
3. Each party to pay its own costs as per agreed quantum.” More
This is an appeal against the determination of a labour officer issued on 24 December 2020, in terms of which he found the respondent not guilty of misconduct charges that had been preferred against him by the appellant. More
This is an application for condonation of the late filing of an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.
In a judgment dated 6 January 2023, this Court set aside the decision of Determining Authority which had found the Respondent Not Guilty of the misconduct charges. The Court ordered parties to file submissions pertaining to issues of aggravation and mitigation. In a further decision dated 13 April 2023, this Court issued a penalty of a Final Written Warning and ordered Respondent’s reinstatement to her former position without loss of salary and benefits failure of which Respondent was entitled... More
Mr. Mafongoya submitted that the appropriate penalty in the matter was not dismissal. He referred to section 65 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe which provides for citizens being accorded the right to fair labour practices. He also referred to the ZIMRA Code of Conduct particularly Clauses 6.2, 6.3, 6.4 with the latter providing that training and education should be the paramount features of any punishment and any punitive penalty should be adopted as a last resort. He referred to case law which provides that an employer has the discretion to mete a penalty of dismissal where the misconduct in question... More
This is an appeal against the decision of a labour officer acquitting respondent from wrongdoing. The appellant employer was aggrieved by that decision. It appealed to this Court. More
In Judgment Number LC/H/64/ 2023 issued on 28 February 2023 this Court( Honourable Musariri J ) in an appeal between the present parties and on the same matter allowed the appeal and made the following order:
‘1.The appeal be and is hereby allowed;
2. The Labour Officer ‘s Determination dated 11December 2020 is set aside; and
3. The matter is remitted to the respondent’s highest disciplinary body for the determination of an appropriate penalty for the respondent’s act of misconduct within the next 60 (sixty) days More
The Appellant is a statutory corporation whose principal function is to act as an agent of the State in assessing, collecting and enforcing the payment of all revenues. At the relevant time, respondent was employed as a Revenue Trainee by appellant from May 2011 until April 2012 when he was dismissed pursuant to a disciplinary hearing conducted on the 13th of April 2012. More
At the hearing of this appeal, Respondents Counsel raised a point in limine concerning the citation of the Respondents. It was his argument that there is no legal persona known as “12 others”. Appellant ought to have cited the 13 Respondents in name in its notice of appeal. He argued that the notice of appeal which cites Chenayi Nyaguse and 12 others is totally defective and cannot be amended as it is a nullity. More
On the 11th December 2020 at Harare, Labour Officer L. Nhandara issued a ruling which ordered appellant (employer) to reinstate respondent (employee) without loss of salary and benefits. Appellant then appealed the ruling to this Court. More
The first respondent, Ezekiel Masamvu, had hiS sugar packaged in Portuguese inscribed satchels seized by first appellant’s officers. Both respondents appeared at Mutasa Magistrates Court for criminal charges of being found with goods not duly accounted for, the state had abandoned the original charge of smuggling in respect of first respondent, the state also charged first respondent herein with s 4 (1) (b) (ii) as read with s 5 of the Food and Food Standards Act [Chapter 15:04], for false description of goods. More
The facts of the matter may be summarised as follows: ZIMRA and the Union (“the parties”) are members of the National Employment Council (“Council”) for the ZIMRA Undertaking. The parties entered salary negotiations for the period of July 2023 to December 2023 and reached a deadlock. Subsequent to the deadlock the matter was referred to voluntary arbitration. The second and the third respondents were appointed arbitrators, the tribunal. More
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 is a judgment on preliminary issues raised on behalf of the respondent.
[2]The background to this matter is as follows. The respondent was employed by the
appellant. A dispute arose between the parties in October 2012. Provisions of the appellant’s
employment code were invoked . There were delays involving conducting the disciplinary
proceedings. After the various delays which included postponements, which afflicted the
matter, the record shows that 10th October 2022 the respondent was notified to attend
disciplinary proceedings.
[3]The proceedings were set to be heard in terms of the a 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
