AMBALI vs BATA SHOE COMPANY 1999 (1) ZLR 417 (S)
that a dismissed employee has a duty to mitigate his loss by looking for alternative employment. This duty arises immediately upon dismissal.
It is also an established principle of the law that he who asserts bears the onus of proof. In computation of damages it is the claimant who bears the onus to prove his claim by adducing evidence. More
This is an application for leave to appeal against a decision of this court issued on 10 October 2014. The respondent was employed by the applicant as a site quantity surveyor on 17 February 2012. It is alleged that he stopped going to work in March 2013 only to report for work in June 2013 demanding his salary. The appellant contended that the respondent had repudiated his contract by failing to report for work. On 6 June 2013 the respondent’s contract of employment was terminated. More
The respondent was employed by the appellant as a machine operator from 19 January 2009 to 28 February 2013, when he was suspended from employment. More
On 17 July 2016 this Court issued an Order pursuant to an application for quantification by the Applicant. The Respondent has requested for reasons for the order. It is my sincere hope that the request has been made in earnest as this matter has been pending finalisation for a very long time indeed. More
The magistrate referred for determination in terms of s 24(2) of the former Constitution (“the Constitution”), the question whether s 33(2)(a) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Cap. 9:23] (“the Criminal Law Code”) violated the fundamental right to freedom of expression entrenched by s 20(1) of the Constitution. More
Applicant alleges that he was employed by the respondent from 1988 and was promoted to the post of Unit Supervisor with effect from 1 May 1998. Applicant further avers that at one time during the course of employment he suffered from mental illness and had to be absent from work. He further states that when he reported for duty he was assigned to work in a different unit. Applicant further submitted that he was later told to go home and would be called by the respondent. It was stated that despite having reported for duty, respondent continually turned him away... More
