This is an application in which an order is sought for the setting aside of the relief granted in case number HC5257/11 on 15 July 2013. The applicants also seek the leave of this court, to file opposing papers to the chamber application filed by the respondent under the aforementioned case number. Applicants seek an order that the respondent pay costs on a legal practitioner client scale. This case will turn on the meaning, at law, of the phrase ‘in the absence of one of the parties’, for purposes of interpreting the provisions of r 449 of the rules of... More
The plaintiff issued summons against the defendant seeking an order for specific performance or alternatively, the value of soya bean not delivered to it in terms of a growers contract. The plaintiff’s case can be summarised as follows. The plaintiff and the defendant entered into a written contract for the 2017/18 growing season beginning October 2017 to September 2018. In terms of the agreement, the plaintiff undertook to provide and make available to the defendant farming inputs and cash to enable him to grow soya beans. More
This is an urgent chamber application in which the applicant is seeking an order declaring that the dispossession of the applicant by the respondent of a mining claim named Canbrae 4 M5341, claim number 10779, measuring 2 hectares and situated in Mazowe (“the property“) in the absence of an order of court is wrongful and unlawful and that the respondent be ordered to return peaceful and undisturbed possession of the property within twenty-four (24) hours of service of this Order on the respondent. More
The plaintiff issued summons against the defendants claiming payment of US$13 868.90 for car rental charges due to the plaintiff and interest thereon at the rate of 3.5% from 1 April 2016 to date of full payment.
The undisputed facts are that the first defendant entered into a car hire agreement with the plaintiff in October 2015. In terms of the agreement he was issued with a motor vehicle a Ford Everest that he used and was expected to make payments. He failed to do so until the motor vehicle was withdrawn from him. The plaintiff had to seek the... More
This plaintiff issued a summons against the defendant claiming payment of an amount just under US$11 000-00. It also claimed the costs of suit on the higher scale and collection commission. The defendant filed a plea, in substance denying that it owed the plaintiff the sum alleged, or at all. It also alleged, among other things, that the plaintiff’s suit was unnecessary and precipitate given that the parties were in continuous discussion with each other and that the defendant was steadily liquidating the outstanding amounts on the plaintiff’s invoices. The defendant further questioned the propriety of the plaintiff claiming both... More
Respondent worked for appellant as a maintenance clerk. A copy of the employment contract is filed of record. It is a fixed term contract running from 31 January 2013 to 30 April 2013. According to appellant, respondent was off sick as from 20 February 2013. At the end of his treatment respondent did not present himself for work. He merely inquired about his leave pay. He did not inquire about his salary for May 2013 until he made a report some 12 months later alleging unfair dismissal. Respondent’s case was that his contract was not terminated. He further submitted that... More
At the onset of the proceedings Counsel for Respondent challenged the right of Zimbabwe Federation of Trade Union (ZFTU) in representing Applicants in this matter. Applicants are not members of ZFTU and as such ZFTU has no rights to file papers and argue matter on behalf of Applicants. More
This is an application for leave to appeal against my judgment of 23 January instant. The purported grounds of appeal are as follows;
1) That the court a quo erred in concluding that the Applicant was not a registered trade union when such union is registered.
2) That the court a quo erred in concluding that an unregistered trade union cannot appoint an agent union when section 31(1)(b) of the Labour Act authorizes such appointments.
3) That the court a quo erred in ordering ZFTU to pay costs. More
The application is for a review of the disciplinary proceedings as convened by the Respondent against the Applicant. The application is premised on Section 92 EE (1) (c) of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01]. The application is opposed. More
Plaintiff and Defendant were married on 28 June 1991. The marriage was blessed with three children, Tafara David Zhou (born 15 October 1992) (Tafara), Ruvimbo Charity Zhou (born 23 December 1997) (Ruvimbo) and Rugare Ndovisai Zhou (born 18 October 2009) (Rugare). Plaintiff issued out summons for divorce and ancillary relief on 20 September, 2019, on the grounds that the marriage relationship has irretrievably broken down to the extent that it can no longer be salvaged. In her declaration she stated that one of the children, Rugare is still a minor and given that Plaintiff has been staying with her in... More
The applicant and the third and fourth respondents are embroiled in a mining dispute, which involves a mining claim known as Victory 100 “A”, Registration Number 42 931, Banket, Mashonaland West (the mine). The applicant holds a certificate of registration in respect of the said mine, which was issued on 20 July 2012. The third respondent on the other hand holds an offer letter in respect of a farm known as Subdivision 2 of Verblyden of Dunphaile in the Zvimba District of Mashonaland West Province (the farm). The offer letter was issued on 10 February 2020 and measures 87.50 hectares... More
This is an appeal against the decision of the respondent employer’s appeals committee where it confirmed appellant employee’s dismissal following misconduct allegations. More
This is an application for review against the Appeals Officer’s decision whereby he dismissed the Applicant’s internal appeal against the decision of the Hearing Officer.
The brief facts of the matter are that applicant who was employed by the Respondent as a Sourcing Specialist Manager in the Procurement Department was charged and found guilty of contravening section 4 (a) of the National Employment Code SI 15/2006. It was alleged that she committed “any act of conduct on omission inconsistent with the fulfilment of the express or implied conditions of his or her conduct. More
