The applicant was employed as Group Engineering Director by the first respondent, which represented itself as a holding company comprising several subsidies with the second respondent as its Chief Executive Officer. More
This is an appeal against the decision of an arbitrator ordering the appellant to reinstate the respondents or alternatively that the respondents be awarded the appropriate damages in lieu of reinstatement. More
On 4th May 2010 this Court made a default order in favour of the Respondents. The order directed Applicant to reinstate Respondents or alternatively pay them damages in lieu of reinstatement. The order was made by reason of Applicant’s default.
On 18th March 2011 the Court granted Applicant leave to file a belated application for rescission of the earlier order. On 19th May 2011 Applicant filed the application for rescission. In matters of this nature an Applicant is required
to show good cause in order to obtain relief. The main pertinent factors are the explanation for the default and the... More
This is an appeal against the arbitrator’s award in which it was held that the Appellant council had committed an unfair labour practice against the Respondents and was thus ordered to correct the same.
The facts of the case are that in 2007 the Appellant came up with a new organogram meant to change the grading and designations of its employees. Same was approved by a resolution of the full Council and was partially implement by the re-designation of some of its employees.
The Respondents who were in Appellant’s employ as patrol persons were meant to be branded sergeants in... More
This is an application for the upliftment of the bar which came into operation following the failure by the applicant to enter appearance to defend within the time stipulated in the Rules of Court. The applicant herein is the defendant while the respondent is the plaintiff in Case Number HC 9909/11 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the main action’). More
The plaintiff is the Member of Parliament for Bikita West Constituency. He claims against all the defendants jointly and severally, the one paying the others to be absolved, the sum of US$100 000 being damages for “defamation, injuria and impairment of dignity”, arising from a newspaper article published in The Mirror newspaper of 3 to 9 July 2009. More
The second and third defendants are, in fact, the same person cited twice in the proceedings instituted by the plaintiff by way of summons. The summons was served together with what purports to be the plaintiff’s declaration, to which was attached an “affidavit to prove damages”. In response, the second and third defendants objected to the claim on three distinct grounds. The first objection is by way of exception to the summons and declaration on the basis that they do not disclose a cause of action and, alternatively, that they are vague and embarrassing. The defendants have also raised the... More
