Appellant employee filed an appeal against his dismissal from employment by the respondent employer following allegations of misconduct. The employer is opposed to the grant of appellate relief as it is its view that appellant does not have a good case on appeal. When parties appeared before the court the employer took the point that the appeal grounds 1 to 6 were review grounds as they sought to interrogate the process leading to the guilty verdict and dismissal penalty so these should have been brought up in an application for review as opposed to an appeal. In reaction to the... More
The applicant submitted that the notice of appeal is served together with the notice of response. In accordance with Rule 15 (2) of the Labour Court Rules the Respondent was suppose to respond within thirty (30) days. The appeal was filed on 12 September 2011 and the Respondent only responded on the 18th of February 2014. More
Appellant was employed as a Provincial Magistrate stationed at Mutare. During a routine check of the Court Record Book it was discovered that sentences imposed by Appellant were suspiciously, the same in different matters that he had handled. The Head of the station decided to refer these cases for review. In a review judgment, UCHENA J. made comments about the sentences and referred the matter to the Chief Magistrate. This resulted in Appellant being charged. The Disciplinary Committee recommended that Appellant be fined the sum of USD 300.00 and his rank be reduced to that of Magistrate. The Disciplinary Authority... More
. The plaintiff and the defendant started staying together in the manner of husband and wife in 1998 under an unregistered customary law union. On the 14th June 2001, their marriage was solemnised in terms of the Marriage Act [Chapter 5:11].
Their marriage was blessed with two children of whom one is now an adult whilst the other is still a minor. More
The Appellants are employed of by the Respondent in various capacities. They also acted in certain higher positions for periods in excess of 2 years (since 20 March 2009). They were aggrieved by acting in those periods and felt that the Respondent was committing an unfair labour practice by not substantively appointing them to posts in which they were acting. The matter was referred for conciliation. They failed to settle. A certificate of no settlement was issued and the matter was referred to arbitration. More
The appellant was in default despite the fact that summons was served on his designated representatives, the Zimbabwe Federation of Trade Unions (“ZFTU”). Respondent’s Counsel implored the court to proceed to hear the matter on the merits. The court granted the request.
The brief facts of the matter are that the appellant was employed by the respondent as a Project Manager. He is alleged to have misused the motor vehicle allocated to him by the respondent. He was charged and found guilty leading to his dismissal. The matter ended up in arbitration and the arbitrator upheld his dismissal. The appellant... More
The parties are embroiled in a dispute involving a botched deal for the sale of motor vehicles. The facts in respect of both appeals are the same. Sometime in January 2017, Mutare Toyota entered into an agreement of sale with Sakunda in terms of which it was to deliver, on or before 28 February 2017, five Toyota Landcruiser LC 200 VX and three Toyota Prado motor vehicles at a cumulative price of about S$1,274,000.00. The parties agreed that Sakunda would pay the full purchase price upon an invoice being raised by Mutare Toyota. In pursuance of the agreement, Sakunda duly... More
Respondent applied for condonation of belated filing of its response. It stated that the response was due on the 21st September 2023 but was filed one (1) day later on 22nd September 2023. The delay was caused by the fact that the respondent is based in Bindura whilst the Court is situate in Harare. No prejudice has been alleged or shown by appellant. All necessary papers now being available respondent argued that it was in the interests of justice that condonation be granted and the matter be determined on its merits. More
This application is a sequel to the urgent application in case No. HC 5075/2008 in which the 1st and 2nd respondents were granted an order restoring to them access to the farm and ejecting the applicant from the farm. The background to that case is that the applicant was issued with an offer letter by the 5th respondent permitting him to occupy the farm. He moved onto the farm. The 1st and 2nd respondents filed the application in Case No HC 5075/08 alleging that the applicant was interfering with their occupation of the farm and therefore seeking an order for... More
This is a double sale situation.
On 4 April 2002 and at Harare the plaintiff purchased the right, title and interest in a certain piece of land situate in the district of Salisbury called stand 7872 Warren Park Township of Warren Park. It is a residential stand measuring 1 012 square metres.
The seller was the 1st defendant (Saltana), represented by the 2nd and 3rd defendants (the directors) in the transaction.
The purchase price was the sum of one million two hundred and fifty seven thousand and five hundred dollars ($1 257 500). This amount was paid in full.
Despite... More
On 26 May 2016, appellant was arraigned at the Regional Court sitting at Rusape facing Rape as defined in s 65 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23]. The State alleged that on the date unknown to the prosecutor but during the month of April 2016 and at Chizunza Village, Chief Makoni, Rusape, appellant unlawfully and knowingly had sexual intercourse with Talent Makolo, a female juvenile, aged 11 years, once without her consent or realising that there is a real risk or possibility that she may not have consented to it. More
The first plaintiff and the defendant are husband and wife respectively. They married each other in terms of the Marriage Act [Cap 5:11] at Harare in April 1998. Hitherto the parties had contracted a customary law union.
The second plaintiff the Anti-Corruption of Zimbabwe was joined in the proceedings in terms of Order 13 r 87(2)(b) of the High Court Rules 1971 on account of the dispute involving a motor vehicle between the first plaintiff and the defendant.
The first plaintiff issued summons out of the court on 21 June 2010 seeking a decree of divorce and an order of... More
The appellant was employed by the Respondent prior to him being arraigned before the Disciplinary Committee on one charge of misconduct. The Appellant was found guilty and dismissed from employment. More
This is an appeal against the determination of the Negotiating Committee for the National Employment Council for the Commercial Sectors (Negotiating Committee), which upheld the dismissal of the appellant from the respondent’s employment. More
