n this action the plaintiff makes the following claim:-
“(a)Payment in the sum of US$4500-00 (Four Thousand and Five hundred United States Dollars Only) being damages for shock, pain and suffering, unlawful arrest and detention of the plaintiff perpetrated by third, fourth and fifth defendants, who were all members of the Zimbabwe Republic Police (ZRP) acting within the course and scope of their employment with the first and second defendants thus rendering the latter vicariously liable for their employees’ actions. The third, fourth and fifth defendants are liable in their personal capacities.” More
The brief facts are that the Appellant was employed as an agent or dealer of the Respondent. On 25 October 2010 Appellant was suspended from employment using SI 15/06. He was suspended on allegations of contravening sections 4 (a), (b), (d) and (f) of SI 15 of 2006. He appeared before a hearing which found him guilty and dismissed him from employment. Appellant referred the matter for conciliation. There was no settlement resulting in the matter being referred for arbitration. The Arbitrator confirmed Appellant’s dismissal from employment. More
Litigants in this country are fast developing this unacceptable and indeed detestful habit of trifling with courts of law and in the process succeeding in bringing the courts to disrepute. There is no other way of describing the opposition to this application for registration of an arbitral award made against the respondent by D Mudzengi, an arbitrator, on 7 June 2011 than to say that it is trifling with the court in a regrettable manner.
The applicant was employed by the respondent, and from the papers before, me she is still so employed, as a project co-ordinator/manager. The respondent is... More
This is an application for rescission of default judgment brought in terms of Order 9 rule 63 of the High Court Rules 1971. The relief sought is that:
1. Judgment in case HC 1805/12 entered against applicant on 28 March 2012 be and is hereby rescinded.
2. Applicant is granted leave to supply further particulars requested by first and second respondents under case HC 11517/11 within five (5) days of the date of the granting of this order.
3. First and second respondents pay costs of suit on a legal practitioner client scale if opposed to the application. More
The brief facts to this dispute are as follows;
On 6June 2012 Honourable Arbitrator M.C. Kare gave an award the effect of which was that the employer was to pay Appellant a total sum of US$6 422, 00 for unlawfully dismissing him.
On 21June 2012, the Appellant approached the Arbitrator seeking an additional award. On 2July, the Arbitrator turned down the request and advised the Appellant to appeal to the Labour Court if he was dissatisfied with the award.
On 11July 2012 the Appellant noted an appeal against the award with the Labour Court.
On 13November 2012, Appellant entered into... More
The matter was placed before me as appeal against an arbitral award handed down on 22nd of June, 2012. When the parties appeared before me on 27 March 2013 the parties agreed to postpone the mattersine die in order for Respondent to file Supplementary Heads of Argument based on the application by Appellant to amend her notice of appeal. More
