The brief history of this case is that Respondent was employed on a three (3) month contract as a Loss Control Assistant. The contract was renewed many times. The Respondent is denying that he signed the last written contract which was going to expire on the 31st December 2011. He is alleging that he worked under a contract which did not state the date of expiry. Respondent has therefore submitted that he was unduly terminated. Conciliation proceedings could not produce a settlement and the matter was referred for arbitration before Honourable Arbitrator Chimhuka. More
This is an application for rescission of a default judgment handed down by this Court on 5th June 2014.
The background to the matter is that the Applicant employer appealed to the Labour Court against an arbitral award made in favour of the Respondent employees in relation to the employee’s housing allowance and non-pensionable allowances. On the set down date for the appeal the Applicant’s legal practitioners did not attend court leading to the Court granting the default judgment in favour of the Respondent employees. More
Respondents obtained an arbitral award in their favour which award was appealed against on 6 December 2013. Appellant’s heads of argument were due within fourteen (14) days of receipt of the notice of response but were not filed. Respondents applied for the dismissal of the appeal in terms of Rule 19 (3) (a) of the Labour Court Rules SI 59/2006. The application was granted and the appeal was dismissed on 14 July 2013. More
Respondent is the Legal Advisor in the Ministry of Energy and Power Development (the Ministry). Between 20 October 2009 and the end of February 2012 he was seconded to the Zimbabwe Electricity Regulatory Commission (ZERC). During the period of Secondment he was remunerated by the then Public Service Commission. Respondent also received an allowance of $500 for his work at ZERC.
After the amendment of the Energy Act [Chapter 13:19] by the Parliament of Zimbabwe, ZERC was dissolved to pave way for the establishment of an all encompassing energy regulatory Commission. Respondent was seconded to administer ZERA’s affairs in the... More
The respondent was engaged by the appellant. The nature of the engagement is in dispute. The appellant alleged that the respondent was engaged as a legal consultant. The respondent alleged he was engaged as an employee. The facts leading to the termination of the engagement are not in dispute. The appellant as an employer and exercising its rights convened a disciplinary hearing against one of its employees. The respondent represented the employee in the proceedings that the respondent had instituted against the said employee. More
This matter involves 2 appeals which were consolidated for ease of reference during their argument. These pertain to an appeal against an arbitral award and an appeal against a quantification of that arbitral award. The parties are the same and the labour dispute is the same which gave rise to the decisions now under appeal. More
