This matter was placed before me through the Chamber Book on 25 January 2012. After I perused the papers I directed that the matter be set down for hearing the next day. On this day the parties addressed me on the issue of urgency. I found the matter to be urgent and the respondents asked for more time to prepare and file their opposing papers which indulgence was granted. The hearing was postponed to 31 January 2012. More
The factual position is that this Court dismissed a court application and a counter claim in HC 1456/20 whose judgment in HH 743/20 was delivered in motion court on the 25th November 2020. On the day the judgment was delivered counsel for the applicant was not present in court despite that he was advised to attend court at 1000hrs earlier on the same day at 9.30am. The reason for his failure to attend court hearing being that he was engaged elsewhere. Dissatisfied with this court’s decisions the applicant is desirous to appeal against this court’s decision to the Supreme Court More
The plaintiff and the defendant purportedly customarily married each other in 1997 or 1998. The customary union was not valid as the plaintiff was still married to another woman in terms of the Marriages Act [Cap 5;11]. The plaintiff’s wife died in April or may of 2001immediately after which the plaintiff and the defendant separated as the plaintiff’s family alleged the defendant had caused the plaintiff’s former wife to commit suicide. She threw herself on to a railway line and was crushed to death by a train. The plaintiff and the defendant resumed their customary union in June 2002 after... More
After hearing argument from counsel, the court was unanimous in granting this application in the following terms:
“1. It is declared that the applicant is not disqualified from standing as a candidate for election as a councillor in the forthcoming municipal elections.
2. There shall be no order as to costs.” More
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 applicant prays for a review of the matter and an order that the penalty conditions imposed by the Commissioner General under REF HQ 10/50/180/2023 be set aside and the motor vehicle a Toyota Fortuner be released unconditionally to him.
The background of the matter is that applicant entered Zimbabwe via the Beitbridge Border Post in a Toyota Fortuner which he alleges was driven by one Simbarashe Ngoshi and which he had been given and authorised to drive by the owner Tongesai Chigwamba. Notably this version of events in its detail is impugned by the respondent through documentation and analysis... 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
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
