Welcome to Midlands State University Library

Court Judgements



Browse Court Judgements by year
This is an application for quantification of damages due to the applicant employee from the respondent employer. The rest of the issues in this matter are common cause if regard is had to the oral submissions made by the parties on the hearing date. In summary form parties are agreed on the rest of the quantification figures and the law giving rise to these. The only divergence is where applicant claim 18 months damages and the respondent offers 5 months instead. It is only this aspect which is addressed by this judgment. Applicant claims 18 months damages citing the fact... More

This is an appeal against the determination by Honourable arbitrator J N Madziya on 6 October 2015. More

This is an application for review of the proceedings of the Health Services Board Disciplinary Committee. Applicant was a principal tutor at Mpilo Central Hospital. She was charged with acts of misconduct in terms of the Health Service Regulations SI 117/06. A disciplinary hearing was conducted on 2 December 2013 and she was found guilty and was discharged from service. Applicant appealed to the respondent against conviction and penalty. He respondent ruled that the matter be reheard with it assuming the role of the Disciplinary authority. More

On 23 July 2014 the Appeals Committee of the NEC for the Chemicals & Fertilizers Manufacturing Industry made a determination. It ordered Appellant to reinstate Respondent’s employment or pay him damages in lieu of reinstatement. Appellant then appealed to this Court against the determination. Respondent opposed the appeal. More

On 22 October 2015 this matter was postponed sine die at the instance of the appellant. Since then the appeal has not been prosecuted giving rise to the impression that the appeal has been abandoned. In terms of section 89 (2) (a) (i) of the Labour Act the court in the exercise of its many functions may decide an appeal on the basis of papers filed of record. It is in the spirit of the above quoted section that the instant judgment is written to dispose of the appeal which was postponed sine die on 22 October 2015. More

Respondent was employed by the appellant as a procurement executive. For the sack of brevity the court will summarise the facts as follows. During the currency of her employment, respondent filed certain grievances with the appellant. These issues were deliberated upon by the appellant who dismissed them. Thereafter the appellant instituted misconduct proceedings against the respondent. Respondent declined to attend and the matter was heard in her absence. She was found guilty and dismissed from employment More

At the conclusion of the oral submissions the court dismissed the appeal stating that there was no merit. Appellants’ legal counsel has requested for written reasons therefor. The following are the reasons. Appellants were employed by respondent in various capacities at its Marondera Offices. It is alleged that appellants were assigned duties to assist in the distribution of agricultural inputs, namely fertiliser, to farmers in the area. It is alleged that the appellants received bags of fertiliser which they were not entitled to but should have been distributed to farmers who did not attend on the particular date of the... More