The applicants approached the court on 15 February 2013 on appeal against dismissal of application or bail pending appeal against both conviction and sentence. Upon considering the written and oral submissions by both appellant counsel and state counsel I dismissed the application pointing out in summary that the appellants’s application lacked merit and had no prospects of success. More
This is an application, filed on the basis of urgency, in which the applicant seeks a declaratur that, being a citizen by birth, he is entitled to dual citizenship and that the law does not require of him to renounce his foreign citizenship before he can be issued with a Zimbabwean national identity document. More
At the hearing of this matter Respondent raised a point in limine. Respondent submitted that the appeal was not in compliance with Rule 15 (1) (a) which stipulates that three copies of form LC3 must be completed. He went on to say that from Appellant’s notice of appeal it is clear that rules of Court were not followed and this is a fatal omission. Proper reasons must be given for a departure from the rules of this Court. In casu Applicant has not given any, and has not asked for condonation. Respondent submitted that the appeal is non-existent and must... More
The appellant is challenging the decision of the Negotiating Committee dated 22 March, 2011 which decision upheld an earlier determination by the Mashonaland Local Joint Committee to reinstate the five (5) respondents without loss of salary and benefits from the date of dismissal.
The material background facts to the matter are as follows;
The five (5) respondents were all employed by the appellant in various capacities that included a shop salesmen, a storekeeper and a till operator. They were all employed to work within one of the appellant’s stores. During the period 8 April 2010 to 19 August 2010 two... More
Appellant was employed by the Respondent as an overseer. On 23 February 2009 he was suspended from employment pending a disciplinary hearing. The allegations against him were that on 10 February 2009 at 1400 hours he took part in an unlawful collective job action. He was alleged to have left his work station without authority and sat at Mutondo square with other participating employees. A disciplinary hearing was subsequently held and he was found guilty and was dismissed from employment. He appealed to the General Manager and subsequently to the National Employment Council for Chemicals and Fertilizers Manufacturing Industry but... More
Respondent filed its heads of argument on 23January 2013, two years after being served with Appellant’s heads. In terms of rule19 (2)(a) of this court’s rules, Respondent was enjoined to file his heads of argument within 14days of receipt of Appellant’s heads. The Respondent is barred and the appeal is rendered unopposed in terms of rule19(3)(a) of the Labour Court Rules (SIJ9/06). In terms of the Labour Court rules I am proceeding to deal with the matter on the merits as unopposed. More
