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
Applicant applied to this Court for condonation of late noting of appeal. The application was made in terms of Rule 22 of the Labour Court Rules, 2017. Respondent opposed the application. Previously applicant noted an appeal under reference LCH 559/23. The appeal was struck off the roll by this Court (Justice Chivizhe) on 23rd April 2024 by reason of a fatally defective Notice of Appeal. Applicant then filed the present application on 23 May 2024 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
The applicants approached this court seeking the rescission of the judgment granted by this court on 30 April 2008 in HC 7208/07 and that the first, second and fourth respondents pay costs of the application. The basis for seeking the order is that the judgment in HC 7208 was obtained through fraud. More
This is an application for bail pending appeal. When the application was argued the court delivered an ex-tempore judgment dismissing third and fourth applicants’ application and directing that first and second applicants consider pursuing their application before another judge appearing either in person or by counsel of each’s own choice. The direction to separate the hearing of first and second applicant’s application was occasioned by the midstream renunciation of agency by Mr Tsarwe who initially appeared representing all the applicants. The renunciation of agency midstream at the hearing was caused by a realization that there was a potential conflict of... More
The plaintiff issued summons against the defendant claiming $100 000 000.00 old currency. $100 000.00 revalued being defamation damages, interest at the prescribed rate from the date of demand being the rate from the date of demand being the 26th November 2004 to the date of payment More
The background to the matter is that applicant who was in the respondent’s employment as an Information Technology Officer was brought before a disciplinary committee to answer allegations of misconduct. At the commencement of the disciplinary proceedings he raised a point in limine that he had been charged using a wrong Code of Conduct. The hearing officer listened to submissions from both parties and ruled that the correct code had been used. Applicant was aggrieved by that and suggested that the hearing officer was biased and stated that she had to recuse herself from the matter. The hearing officer stated... More
