The twenty three Respondents were employed by the Appellant in different capacities. In 2002 the respondents were dismissed from employment by the Appellant. There are no documents filed of record showing what the charges were but they were subsequently relieved of their duties. Respondents immediately filed a complaint against Queen Elizabeth School for an unfair labour practice with a labour officer. The matter was subsequently referred for arbitration. As indicated the record of the Arbitration process was not filed of record. The Arbitrator noted that Queen Elizabeth School had raised a defence that it was not the Respondent’s employer but... More
D. Mupwanyiwa The plaintiff issued summons against the defendant on 2 March 2011. In its declaration, the plaintiff averred that the parties entered into a swop agreement in 2009, in terms of which the plaintiff surrendered to the defendant a Mazda B22 vehicle, registration number AAH 5588, and the defendant undertook to use the parts of its Nissan SE vehicle to reconstruct the plaintiff’s Nissan SE motor vehicle registration number AAH 5587. More
On 24 April 2013 I dismissed Applicants’ application. Applicants requests reasons for such dismissal. These are they;
Applicants made an application to this court in terms of section 89(2) (b),(c) (d) of the Labour Act as read with Rule 14(1) (b) this court’s rules. Applicants alleged that a Labour Officer failed for some reason to issue a Certificate of No Settlement, in relation to the dispute in terms of Section 93(3) of the Act after the expiry of 30 days. The initial day of conciliation was 21 November 2012. 30 days there from was 9 January 2013. On 14 December... More
This is application for a declaratory order declaring the ruling by the Arbitrator null and void for want of compliance with s 89(2)(c) iii) of the Labour Act [Cap 28:01], which requires that an award for reinstatement must have as an alternative specific amount of damages to be awarded to the employee concerned. More
The plaintiff seeks provisional sentence in the sum of US$36 457-11 together with interest at the rate of 5% per annum from 19 October 2011 to date of payment, a sum contained in various quotations attached to the provisional sentence summons. He also relies on the judgment of this court, being HH 79-06, per BHUNU J, ordering the defendant to pay the plaintiff the sum of $4 744 515 138-00 (four billion seven hundred and forty four million five hundred and fifteen thousand one hundred and thirty eight Zimbabwe dollars), plus interest at the prescribed rate and costs of suit. More
This an application for the registration of an arbitral award as an order of this court for purposes of enforcement.
The application is made in terms of s 98(14) of the Labour Act [Cap 28:01] (“the Act”) which provides as follows:
“(14) Any party to whom an arbitral award relates may submit for registration the copy of it furnished to him in terms of subs (13) to the court of any magistrate which would have had jurisdiction to make an order corresponding to the award had the matter been determined by it, or, if the arbitral award exceeds the jurisdiction... More
When this matter came up for hearing, the respondent’s legal practitioner argued that the record was not a true reflection of what had transpired during the hearing. More
