The issues for determination in this appeal against an arbitral award are;
“whether or not the claim by the Appellant had prescribed by the time it was referred to a Labour Officer”
It is not disputed that on 24 June 1999 the Appellant was suspended from his work place. On 22 December 1999 he was dismissed.On 10 March 2000 the matter was referred to the Review Board. The Appellant requested for the transcript to enable him to prepare his grounds for review. The transcript was availed to the Appellant on or before 26 July 2000. More
The applicant was on trial before the regional magistrate, Chinhoyi, for rape. He pleaded not guilty. Evidence was led against him. At the end of the case for the prosecution, an application for his discharge was made in terms of s 198(3) of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act, [Chapter 9:07], which provides as follows;
“198(3) If at the close for the case for the prosecution the court considers that there is no evidencethat the accused committed the offence charged in the indictment, summons or charge, or any other offence of which he might be convicted thereon, it shall return... More
This is a court application in which the 2 applicants who are former members of the Central Intelligence Organisation (CIO) seek an order in the following terms:
“IT IS ORDERED THAT: More
The Respondent was employed by the Appellant as an Electrical Assistant. On 15th of October, 2009 he attained the age of 60 years. In accordance with appellant’s retirement policy the Respondent was advised of his retirement with effect from the 31st of December, 2009.
The Respondent however challenged the decision to retire him and lodged instead a claim for unfair dismissal. Upon failure to conciliate by the Labour Officer the matter was referred for compulsory arbitration. The terms of reference were for the Arbitrator to determine whether or not the Appellant had been unlawfully dismissed from employment. More
The applicant approached the court through the urgent book on 01 February 2013. The Judge court directed that the matter be set down for hearing on 04 February 2013, on which date the respondent’s legal practitioner Mr Samukange successfully applied for postponement of the matter to 06 February 2013 to enable him to take full instructions from his clients one of who was said to be out of the country. On 06 February 2013 the respondents filed opposition to the application. The applicant in that application sought an interim relief that;- More
The facts of this matter are briefly that the Respondent was employed as an electrical engineer. He was charged with two acts of misconduct that is
1. Habitual and substantial neglect of duty, and
2. Lack of skill
The events which led to the charges were that on 10 and 11 September 2010, the Respondent is alleged, contrary to his duties, to have failed to repair an important BLC mill motor. More
