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
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
This is a case in which the sixteen Applicants seek to register a quantified arbitral award collectively amounting to US$26 352.00 for unlawful retrenchment by the Respondent. The registration of the quantified award through a chamber application was challenged by the Respondent who raised issues in limine on grounds that I will elaborate fully below. The genesis of the dispute is one that in the context of economic challenges, has increasingly come to sound like a stuck record. The employees received letters of termination from the Respondent, the employer, which cited “the hardships being faced”. Respondent purported to terminate their... More
This matter was reffered to me in Chambers in terms of Rule19 (3) (a) of this Court’s rules. The Respondent applied for the dismissal of the appeal filed by the Appellant. I noted that the appeal was dismissed on 13 April 2012 by this Court in terms of Rule19 (3) (a). I caused the Registrar to invite parties so that I clarify on why I should again dismiss an already dismissed appeal. More
This is an appeal against the determination by the NEC for the Engineering and Iron and Steel Industry which ordered that the Respondent be reinstated and that a warning letter be withdrawn and that the deductions made be reimbursed. More
The plaintiff issued summons against the defendant on 4 March 2013 seeking an order for payment of US$10 996,26 for goods allegedly sold and delivered to the defendant at its instance and request More
Before the merits of this application could be heard, Mr T.K. Hove who appeared on behalf of the respondent raised a preliminary issue. Mr Hove submitted that the parties are wrongly cited. The wrong citation was brought to the attention of the applicant and his legal practitioners. This was not corrected. Mr Hove therefore applied for the Court to dismiss the application before the Court for lack of clarity. More
