This is an appeal against the decision of Arbitrator E.R. Chako that was handed down on 1 July 2015. The award was couched as follows;
“(1) The applicants were unfairly dismissed.
(2) The applicants be reinstated without loss of benefits or the respondent pay damages in lieu of reinstatement.”
The background history of this matter is that the respondents were employed by the appellant. Respondents raised their grievances to the appellant. This however resulted in a hearing and subsequent dismissal. The matter went for arbitration and the Arbitrator ruled in respondents’ favour. More
On the 24th November 2016, we upheld the appeal in this matter with costs. A request for reasons having been made, these are they,
The appellant in this matter had applied for the following relief in the court a quo.
1. That 1st respondent be interdicted from claiming rentals from the applicant’s tenants in respect of Stand No. 22 and 23, Neshuro Township.
2. That 2nd and 3rd respondents be More
This matter came before us as an application for confirmation of the ruling of the applicant in a matter concerning the first respondent and the second respondents being Richard Mwanza and 22 others.
On the 24th of July 2015, the first respondent gave Richard Mwanza and 22 others, three months’ notice of intention to terminate contracts of employment between them. In the letters of notice to terminate, the first respondent indicated that the decision had been reached due to the declining company performance. More
Mr Mandevere appeared on behalf of the employer. He submitted that he was raising two preliminary points for determination by the court. The first was that the entity cited in the application and in the hearing is not a legal persona. The second issue was that the order granted by the applicant was not registrable as required in terms of the Act, as amended.
I will deal with the first issue. Mr Mandewere argued that the correct employer was the Zimbabwe Power Company which owns ZPC Kariba Football Club. He stated that ZPC Kariba FC did not exist. A reading... More
This is an application for the confirmation of a ruling which was made by a labour officer in a matter pitting the first respondent employee and the second respondent employer.
The law is clear in section 5 of the Labour Amendment Act that once a labour officer has made a ruling in a dispute of right brought before him by the parties he shall within a reasonable time apply to the Labour Court to have his ruling confirmed. This is what the labour officer who is the applicant in the case at hand seeks to achieve. More
On 9 December 2015 I made an order dismissing an application for condonation. On the basis that I did not find that the explanation given for the delay was reasonable and further that the applicant’s prospects of success on appeal were NOT good ones. More
This is an application for the cancellation of Deed of Transfer 2541/14. The deed wasissued by the third respondent in favour of the first respondent after the second respondentallegedly sold the disputed property to the first respondent. Prior to Deed of Transfer2541/14 being issued, the applicant and second respondent had been involved in a matter, HC 218/12, in which the applicant sought transfer of the disputed property from the second respondent. More
