This was an application for bail pending trial. The facts were poorly presented. Despite several sittings; despite several supplements to the bail statement and despite several supplements to the bail response, it remained unclear what exactly had transpired. Only after some blow by blow account in less formal proceedings in Chambers did I finally grasp what had transpired before and after the applicants’ arrest. More
Respondent was employed by appellant as a tool-setter. He is alleged to have influenced other employees to proceed on a “go slow”. A machine broke down and it was attributed to respondent’s actions. He was brought before a Disciplinary Committee which recommended his dismissal. An appeal to the Works Council met with a similar fate. Respondent further appealed to the industry’s General Engineering Code of Conduct Appeals Sub Committee (hereinafter the GEC) which found in his favour and ordered his reinstatement. More
The plaintiff in this matter is the Mining Commissioner for the District of Kadomah. He claims damages in the sum of US$30,000 for defamation arising from several newspaper articles published in The Chronicle in March and April 2009. The 1st defendant is the Minister of Mines, but is sued in this case in his personal rather than official capacity. The 2nd defendant is the editor of The Chronicle, while the 3rd defendant is the publisher of that newspaper. More
The appellants are employed as drivers by the respondent. They had a dispute with the respondent over alleged non payment of overtime. The dispute was referred to an arbitrator who dismissed the claim by the appellants.
The appellants noted this appeal and the grounds of appeal are briefly that;
1. The arbitrator erred and misdirected herself at law as she applied terms and conditions that do not apply to the appellants. She used conditions that apply to Grades A, B, C, D & E but the appellants were in Grade F.
2. The arbitrator erred and misdirected herself at law... More
Applicants’ application for review is based upon a founding affidavit made by the union representative. The relevant portions of the affidavit read as follows,
“5. 1, on behalf of the Applicants, do hereby file an Application for review
of proceedings against an Arbitration Award handed down by Honourable Munyaradzi Dangarembizi on 24th day of August 2010.
6. The Arbitrator was asked to arbitrate on whether the Respondent implemented one of the terms of a retrenchment i.e. item 5 of the package and (2) to determine the appropriate remedy. More
Applicants seek leave to execute two writs of execution against the 1st respondent, a company under judicial management.The background reveals a protracted litigation between the parties. Applicants are employees and former employees of the 1st respondent. Following 1st respondent’s neglect and outright refusal to pay their salaries, applicants approached the National Employment Council for the Security Industry for redress. They obtained awards in their favour in 2014. The 1st respondent unsuccessfully challenged the award in the Labour Court. Applicants then sought enforcement in this court but 1st respondent again challenged the same, subsequently applicants obtained writs of execution and attached... More
: This is an appeal against the four amended assessments issued by the respondent against the appellant on 23 June 2014 in respect of the four consecutive tax years ended 31 December 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012. The real issue for determination posed by these assessments is whether the respondent can tax non-existent income through the deeming provisions of s 98 of the Income Tax Act [Chapter 23:06]. More
The applicant seeks leave to appeal. This is in respect of the judgment of this court on 1 June 2021 under the reference no HH 270-21, per MTSHIYA AJ. That judgment dismissed an appeal by the applicant. The appeal had been noted against certain decisions by the respondent in respect of some objections by the applicant over the tax assessments on it for the period 2010 to 2014. In its judgment, this court distilled the applicant’s numerous objections into one issue: which of the applicant’s expenses and claims were, in law, allowable deductibles for the purposes of determining the income... More
The applicant seeks condonation for the late filing of leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. It also seeks the leave to appeal. It is a composite application. It is slung on one founding affidavit, one set of supporting documents and one draft order. The respondent opposes the application. It has raised a number of technical objections. More
Appellants are employees of the respondent in the Housing Department. In the period between 2005 and 2010 they were all appointed to act in a higher grade, from grade 16 to grade 11. On 12 February 2011 appellants referred to conciliation two issues, non-payment of acting allowance by the respondent and a claim for substantive appointment to the positions they were acting in. More
The Applicants in this case are seeking quantification of damages due to them from the Respondent Company against whom a default judgment was granted by President Hove.
On the date of the hearing for the quantification claim, the Respondent did not avail itself despite service. In this respect reference is made to the affidavit by Last Gata the Labour Court driver who went to serve the Respondent on 06 March 2013. In that affidavit Last states that when he got to the Respondent’s premises of operations, persons there present refused to accept the process arguing that a company by the... More
The background to the matter is that around 2009 when the country faced an acute brain drain due to the then prevailing economic conditions applicant employees were said to have done work in capacities beyond their grades but did not get promoted to the higher grades neither were they paid for the duties they performed in that high capacity. More
The Applicant submitted that he was employed by the Respondent as a supervisor and Imam of the Arcadian Islamic Society (Respondent) from the 1st of September 1989 up to the 28th of January 2015. This point was however disputed by the Respondent. It was Respondent’s counter submission that Appellant was not an employee instead he was only offering his services as per the Respondents religion and under the terms of the Koran. More
