On 13 November 2014 I dismissed with costs an appeal filed by Respondents after an application was made in terms of Rule 19 (3) (a) of the Labour Court Rules SI 59/2006. The said rule obliges an appellant to file heads of argument within fourteen days of receiving a notice of response to the appeal. On 20 November 2014 Respondent wrote to the Registrar of this Court requesting for a reasoned judgment. The reasons for the dismissal of the appeal are clear. More
This matter was reffered to me in Chambers in terms of Rule19 (3) (a) of this Court’s rules. The Respondent applied for the dismissal of the appeal filed by the Appellant. I noted that the appeal was dismissed on 13 April 2012 by this Court in terms of Rule19 (3) (a). I caused the Registrar to invite parties so that I clarify on why I should again dismiss an already dismissed appeal. More
This is an appeal against the judgment of the magistrate sitting at Bulawayo on the 8th January 2018.The respondents instituted action in the Magistrates’ Court seeking amongst other things the eviction of the appellant and payment of arrear rentals in respect of a property known as number 4 Clocolan Road, Burnside, Bulawayo. The respondent defended the matter. The matter was set down for a pre-trial conference. The applicant and her legal practitioner failed to attend the hearing. The respondent applied for and obtained leave to file an application to strike out appellant’s defence. The application was made and an order... More
This is an appeal against the judgment of the Magistrates’ Court sitting at Bulawayo on the 15th February 2019.The background to the case is that the respondents instituted action in the Magistrates’ Court seeking inter alia the eviction of the appellant and payment of arrear rates in respect of an immovable property known as 4 Clocolon Road, Burnside, Bulawayo. The appellant defended the matter. The matter was set down for a pre-trial conference. The appellant and her legal practitioner failed to attend court on the date of the pre-trial conference. The respondent applied for and obtained leave to file an... More
This matter has had a long and chequered history. In its various forms and guises, it has been in and out of this and other courts quite a few times. The dispute revolves around the ownership of a piece of land known as Subdivision 3 of Subdivision A of Imbesu Kraal (‘the property’). The applicant seeks to have the deed of transfer in favour of the 3rd respondent in respect of the property be cancelled in terms of s8 of the Deeds Registries Act, [Chapter 20:05] and that its ownership reverts to the 4th respondent. He insists that he is... More
The thirteen applicants are members of Printers Housing Cooperative Limited. It is common cause that sometime around 2005 they concluded individual standard form contracts of sale with the first respondent Douglas Nyaude a registered estate agent practicing under the style of Graham and Douglas, Real Estate Agent. The contracts were in respect of the sale of certain pieces of immovable properties mentioned in their respective contracts. More
This is an appeal against the determination by the NEC for the Engineering and Iron and Steel Industry which ordered that the Respondent be reinstated and that a warning letter be withdrawn and that the deductions made be reimbursed. More
On 29 July 2008 the plaintiff issued summons against the defendant for the following relief:-
“(a) payment of the sum of US$750 000.00.
(b) interest a tempore morae at the London Interbank rate for United States dollars 3.5% per annum from 1 September 2005 to date of payment.
(c) Costs of suit. More
The parties appeared before me on 21 July 2016 and requested to compile the record and make supplementary submissions. The Court accordingly issued timelines within which the filing of documents was to be concluded. After both parties had filed the documents, they indicated that the Court could proceed to make a determination on the basis of the documents filed of record. The Court will thus proceed on that basis. More
The employer contends that it failed to file its heads of argument because of lockdown restrictions and because of administration glitchesat their offices. It contends further that it has a good case on the merits. This is so given the fact that it intends to have the Supreme Court determine the issue of currency conversion which it considers a question of law and only the domain of the Supreme Court for its resolution. More
In their application the applicants stated that, “this is a review application in terms of s 26 and 27 of the High Court Act [Chapter 7:06] or for declaratory relief in terms of s 14 of the said Act and/or, alternatively, an application for relief in terms of s 4 of the Administrative Justice Act [Chapter 10:28]. More
This is an application for stay of execution of the judgment of this court granted in favour of the first respondent against the applicants in Case Number HC 8560/16. The judgment was granted on 24 May 2017. On 29 May 2017 the applicants instituted an application in terms of r 449 for the setting aside of that judgment. On 30 May 2017 they instituted the instant application under a certificate of urgency seeking stay of execution of that judgment. The application is opposed by the first respondent. More
This is an appeal against refusal of bail by the High Court handed down on 21 January 2021. The appeal is made in terms of rule 67 (1) of the Supreme Rules, 2018 (the rules) as read with s 121(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act [Chapter 9:07] (the CPEA). More
This is an application for the review of the decision of the respondent Council to reverse a resolution which had resulted in the applicant employee’s reinstatement following a labour dispute between the 2 parties.
The basis for review is two fold. It is argued that the employer’s conduct of reversing the reinstatement resolution it had passed on the employee’s case was an illegal act as it went contrary to the provisions of Sec 12(3) of the Labour Act. Secondly it is argued that the employer lacked jurisdiction to rescind its previous decision to reinstate because it did not possess the... More
Of course the first and third respondents took a point in limine challenging the jurisdiction of this court to determine this matter on the ground that it is purely a labour dispute to which the Labour Court enjoys exclusive jurisdiction by virtue of the ouster provision contained in s 89 (6) of the Labour Act[Chapter 28:01], but this application centres around the validity of the suspension of the 2 applicants, who are senior officials of the first respondent having been employed as Human Capital Director and Finance Director respectively. It evolves around the determination of which employment law is applicable... More
