This is an appeal against the decision of the Appeals Committee which found Appellant guilty of negligent loss of company property and negligence. The Appeals Committee upheld the decision of the disciplinary hearing dismissing Appellant from employment.
The brief facts are that Appellant was employed by the Respondent. One of his duties was keeping the keys to the safe and safeguarding the monies deposited therein. On 19 February 2011 Appellant locked the safe and hid the keys in a dust bin. There was an amount of $17 808-00 in the safe. On 21 February 2011 Appellant opened the safe and... More
The plaintiff’s prayer in the declaration reads:
“Wherefore the plaintiff claims against the defendant for an order in the following terms:
a) The defendant return forthwith into the plaintiff’s custody and possession two motor vehicles viz a Mercedez (sic) Benz registration number AAB 6070 and a Nissan Hardbody King Cab registration number ABG 7946 in the same condition the vehicles were in when the defendant dispossessed the plaintiff or IN THE ALTERNATIVE, should both vehicles or one of them be missing for whatever reason the defendant to pay the current market value of both vehicles or such missing vehicle.
b)... More
This matter came as an exparte urgent chamber application for stay of execution of the default judgment granted under HC 10745/11 pending the determination of an application for rescission of judgement in that case. I directed that the other party be served with the application and that the application be set down for argument. Thereafter, I dismissed the application and gave an ex tempo judgement. I have now been requested for detailed reasons. More
This matter came before me as a special case in terms of Order 29 of the High Court of Zimbabwe Rules, 1971. At the pre-trial conference of the parties held before a Judge the parties identified the issue for determination as:-
“Whether the first defendant (the insurer) is contractually/statutorily obligated to pay the plaintiff the damages claimed and if not, the extent of the first defendant’s statutory liability”. More
The appeal is lodged as against the determination by the Respondent disciplinary authority/committee handed down on 24 August, 2010, finding the Appellant guilty of “Gross negligence” (Section 2.3 of Collective Bargaining Agreement: Transport Operating Industry Statutory Instrument 94 of 95 and consequently imposing a dismissal penalty. More
The background to this action is that on 14 May 2004, the 1st defendant, purporting to be the 2nd defendant, entered into an agreement with the plaintiff for the sale of a subdivision of lot 1 of 310 Block B, Hatfield (the property). The plaintiff paid a sum of ZW$50 million towards the purchase price of ZW$100 million. He moved onto the property upon execution of the agreement and effected various improvements on the property. He was given the title deeds to the property as security for the 1st defendant’s performance of his obligations under the agreement. More
The applicant leased Highway Service Station in Macheke to the first respondent on 1 February 2012. The lease has a life span of 12 months. The applicant paid the agreed rentals for the full 12 months period in the sum of US$7 200.00. More
