This is an application in terms of ss 85 (1) (a) and 85 (1) (b) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (No.20/2013) (“the Constitution”). The first applicant is acting in both her own interest and that of her husband who is the second applicant. More
On 2 September 2016, the High Court (MTSHIYA J) granted a provisional order in favour of the respondents in the following terms:-
“IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1. The 1st, 2nd and 3rd respondents and any person acting through them be and are hereby interdicted from infringing on the applicant’s Trademarks No. 1710/200 in Class 34 by using the name RG or any packaging likely to deceive or cause confusion on or in relation to any of the goods for which the marks are registered.
2. The 1st, 2nd and 3rd respondents and any person acting through them be and are... More
This is an appeal against an arbitral award handed down on 26 January 2015 in terms of which the appellant was ordered to reinstate the respondent or pay him damages in lieu of reinstatement. More
The facts which gave rise to the dispute between the parties are common cause and these are that:
The appellant was employed by Zimbabwe National Water Authority (ZINWA) as a senior clerical officer Grade 11.
She stopped reporting for duty in May 2008 and the employer Zinwa stopped paying her salary.
In 2009 there was a government directive that water management functions be re-transferred to local authorities with effect from 1 February 2009.At that time Zinwaemployees were re-transferred to the respondent, City of Harare.
In June 2010 the appellant wrote a letter to the respondent’s Human Resources Manager, to the... More
This is an appeal against the quantification proceedings held before the Honourable Mlilwana. The brief facts are that the respondent was employed by the appellant. Following disagreements at the workplace, the matter finally ended in arbitration. The arbitrator found in favour of respondent and ordered her reinstatement. The respondent later approached the arbitrator for quantification in lieu of reinstatement. The parties appeared before the arbitrator and the arbitrator quantified the damages in lieu of reinstatement in the sum of $4 455-00. The appellant is dissatisfied with this decision and has approached this Court for relief. More
The appeal was noted against the determination of the Respondent’s Works Council dated 6th May, 2005. The appeal arises from the dismissal of Appellant after it was found that he had committed an act of misconduct i.e. Negligence Annexure II of Offence 8.2. as per Delta Beverages Code of Conduct. More
