This matter came as an appeal by the employee against his dismissal by the Respondent company on allegations of contravening the industry code of conduct. On the date of the hearing of the appeal 2 points in limine were raised by the Appellant. It is those points which are the subject matter of this judgment. More
On the 13th August 2014 the court granted an order dismissing the application for condonation of late noting of review filed by the Applicant. The Applicant having requested reasons for the order these are they. More
In a judgment LC/H/278/13 dated the 28th June, 2013, this Court remitted Applicant’s appeal for a re-hearing by an appropriate works council appointed sub-committee. The appeal was to be considered within 45 days of receipt of the judgment. More
The Respondent through his Notice of Response and Heads of Argument has taken four points in limine. The points are as follows;
(1) That the Notice of Appeal as filed is fatally defective for non-compliance with the provisions of Rule 19 (1) of the Labour Court rules, 2017. More particularly that the appeal was filed outside of the twenty-one (21) days of receipt of determination as outlined in Rule 19 (1).
(2) That the relief being sought in the Notice of appeal is incompetent at law in that Appellant is seeking reinstatement only without an alternative claim for damages in... More
The appellant was dismissed from the respondent’s employ for wilful disobedience to a lawful order given by his superior. It is common cause that the appellant was asked to write a report by his superior. He did not do so despite reminders for him to comply with the order. He only did so some months later. Clearly that was wilful disobedience of a lawful order given by someone in authority. The appellant was aggrieved by the dismissal. He appealed internally. The appeal failed. More
This is an appeal against the dismissal of Appellant from Respondent’s employ. There are eight(8) grounds of appeal . Out of those 8 grounds the parties agreed that with respect to the first four grounds they will abide by papers filed of record and oral argument will be restricted to grounds 5to7.As usual following the grounds is the prayer. The prayer reads:
‘WHEREFORE the Applicant prays for an Order for the setting aside of the Disciplinary Authority’s decision.’ More
This is a matter in which the plaintiff left his motor vehicle for repairs with the 1st defendant in August 2004. When the vehicle was returned to the plaintiff in June 2005, its milometer reflected mileage which the plaintiff considered to be excessive. The matter was reported to the police and the second defendant was charged with the offence of using a motor vehicle without the owner’s consent in contravention of section 57(1)(e) of the Road Traffic Act [Chapter 13:11]. The second defendant was then placed on remand awaiting trial. More
This matter was set down for trial to commence on 6 September 2021. Counsel for the defendant rose and informed me that he intended to raise an additional preliminary point. The issue relates to what he termed the purported amendment of summons. Both counsel proposed to file supplementary heads of argument. In plaintiff’s supplementary heads of argument besides the amendment of summons and declaration issue he made additional submissions as regards the issue raised as early as the defendant’s plea, the issue of prescription. More
On 29 January 2016 the applicant signed a loan agreement with the 1st respondent to the tune of USD600,000.00 repayable in 36 months on agreed interest rates. The money was deposited into 2nd respondent’s account with CABS. The 3rd respondent signed as a surety and co-principal debtor. On 27 July 2016 the applicant extended another loan facility to the 1st respondent to the tune of USD300 000.00 payable in 6 months. The loans were paid through transfer at the same bank from the applicant’ s non-resident account. More
The declaration of the plaintiff attached to the summons states that the plaintiff is a local businessman in Mutare. First defendant resides in Mutare and second defendant resides in Harare and is a registered legal practitioner.
On 19 July 2017 and at Harare at second defendant’s offices the parties entered into an agreemet of sale where first defendant sold to plaintiff Stand 7061 Mutare Township for a purchase price of US$90 000-00. The terms of the agreement were that US$60 000-00 was to be paid upon the signing of the agreement, US$ 15 000-00 on or before 30 November 2017,... More
On 15 December, 2014 the respondents, who were the applicants in the court a quo, filed an application to register an arbitral award in terms of s 98 (14) of the Labour Act, [Chapter 28:01]. More
