This is an appeal against the decision of the Respondent’s Appeals Committee which upheld the determination of the Disciplinary Committee which found the Appellant guilty of misconduct culminating in his dismissal from employment.
The brief facts are that Appellant was employed by the Respondent as head responsible for Human Capital Administration. He was charged with misconduct in terms of Respondent’s Code of Conduct. He was brought before the Disciplinary Committee which found him guilty and recommended his dismissal. Appellant was dissatisfied and approached the Appeals Committee for relief. The Appeals Committee upheld two of the charges and found Appellant not... More
The applicant is a former employee of the 1st respondent. He was charged with various acts of misconduct leading to his dismissal on one of them after some of the charges were overturned in the internal appeal. 2nd to 4th respondents appear in their official capacities as office holders of the first respondent who played roles in the disciplinary process. The applicant was aggrieved by the process leading to his dismissal hence the present application. More
The petitioner contested for and lost the Mhondoro- Mubaira constituency. He represented the Movement for Democratic Change (Tsvangirai faction), in the 29 March 2008 harmonised elections. He contested against the respondent who represented Zanu (PF). The respondent won the election. The petitioner filed a petition challenging the respondent’s election. He presented it on 14 April 2008, but served it at the respondent’s party headquarters on 9 May 2008. More
This is an appeal against the dismissal of the appellant from the employ of the respondent. Before the appeal could be heard, a preliminary issue was raised on behalf of the respondent. The preliminary issue was to the effect that the employer of the appellant was not cited. Mr Chitekuteku who appeared on behalf of the respondent submitted that the appellant ought to have cited the Minister of Primary and Secondary Education (the Minister) together with the Public Service Commission (PSC). The PSC, the submission continued, is the employer and not the Minister . Mr Chitekuteku argued that without the... More
The applicant seeks the grant of a provisional order in the following terms;
“TERMS OF THE INTERIM ORDER GRANTED
1. The order in case number HC 9919/13 be and is hereby stayed pending the hearing of the application for rescission of judgement under case number HC 10247/13. More
: This is a claim by the plaintiff for damages in the sum of USD1 300 000.00, interest thereon at the rate of five percent per annum from 18 January 2012 to the date of final payment, and costs of suit. The damages claim arises from the removal of the plaintiff’s bakery and other equipment from premises at 65 Mutare Road, Msasa, Harare where the plaintiff had previously operated a bakery business under the name Q-Tees Bakery. The said premises belong to a company known as Crestlane Investments (Private) Limited. More
On 29 December 2009 the plaintiff herein issued summons against the two defendants wherein it sought payment against them, jointly and severally, for the following:
a) US $247 143.21,
b) US$33 088.88 being accrued interest on the said sum of US$ up to 30th November 2009
and
c) further interest on the said capital sum of US$247 143.21 at 5% per annum with effect
from 1 December 2009 until date of payment. More
At the onset of oral argument in this Court respondents raised a point in limine which applicant opposed. The point is summarised in respondents opposing affidavit as follows
“2. In limine
The Applicant is approaching this Court without exhausting the Appeals process in that he applied for review of this to this Court without exhausting the remedies provided for in section 10 of the Welfare and Educational Institutions Employers Association Code of conduct which the authority which was used to charge the Applicant.” More
The applicant, who is a labour officer duly appointed under the provisions of Section121 of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01] is seeking in this application, confirmation of his ruling made in terms of Section 93 (5) (c) of the Labour Act [Chapter28:01]. The ruling which was made in a matter pitting Lloyd Kanera and 6 Others v Haumin Investments (Pvt) Ltd was handed down on 16 May 2016. The application is opposed. More
On 17 October 2018 the appellant was arraigned before the Provincial Magistrate sitting at Rusape facing stock theft as defined in s 14 (2) (a) (i) and (ii) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23]. It was alleged that on a date unknown to the prosecutor but between 2017 and September 2018 and at Marowa Village Chief Makoni Rusape, Takudzwa Mufandaedza and the appellant one or both of them unlawfully and knowing that Innocent Mufandaedza is entitiled to own, possess or control 31 cattle or their produce or realising that there was a real risk or possibility... More
: Rule 236 (4)(b) of the Rules of this Honourable Court provides that “where the applicant has filed an answering affidavit in response to the Respondent’s opposing affidavit but has not, within a month thereafter, set the matter down for hearing, the respondent, on notice to the applicant may either… make a chamber application to dismiss the matter for want of prosecution, and the judge may order the matter to be dismissed with costs or make such other order on such terms as he thinks fit.” Pursuant to the provisions of the above rule the applicant filed the present application... More
The appellant filed an appeal against the decision of the respondent’s mine manager, in his capacity as administering official who presided over his appeal. (Appeal Officer). The Appeal Officer upheld the Disciplinary Committee’s determination, which found the appellant guilty of misconduct and imposed a penalty of dismissal. More
The applicant filed an application for a final interdict in respect of a mining claim known as SARAMINE ‘A’, situate in Kwekwe District, under certificate of registration number 30705. Previously, the mine was registered in 2002 by the applicant’s mother who worked upon the mining claims. The respondent opposes the grant of the interdict and avers that the mining claim encroaches on to the respondent’s Woodridge Plot. It is common cause that the respondent is the holder of a certificate of occupancy in respect of Plot number 6 Woodridge, measuring 40 hectares in extent. The certificate of occupancy was issued... More
This is an application for review. It is opposed. At the commencement of the hearing two preliminary issues were raised on behalf of the respondent. Firstly, Mr Matsikidze who appeared on behalf of the respondent criticized the grounds for review. He argued that the said grounds are combined grounds of appeal on the merits and review. Secondly , Mr Matsikidze argued that the relief sought is incompetent in that the applicant seeks reinstatement instead of having the decision set aside and a rehearing ordered. In the result it was submitted on behalf of the respondent that the application ought to... More
