On 29th June 2015 at Marondera Arbitrator E. Mudzengerere issued an arbitration award. He ordered Appellant to reinstate Respondents’ employment or pay them damages in lieu of reinstatement. Appellant then appealed to this Court against the award. Respondents opposed the appeal. More
The four respondents are former employees of the appellant company. Each one of them was dismissed. Upon reference of the matter to arbitration, the Learned Arbitrator found that they had been unfairly dismissed and ordered their respective reinstatements with alternative orders for payment of quantified amounts of damages. Aggrieved by the arbitrator’s decision the appellant appealed to this Court on the following grounds with respect to each of the respondents. More
The background to this case is as follows: The five respondents were employed by the applicant in August 2015 the applicant terminated the respondents’’ employment on three months’ notice.
The effective date of termination was to be 31 October 2015.
On 15 October 2015 applicant applied for exemption from paying compensation in terms of section 12 C (3) of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01] to the exemption committee of the National Employment Council for the Motor Industry (the exemption committee)
On 23 November 2015 a hearing was conducted before the exemption committee. Subsequently on 3 December 2015 the exemption committee... More
The record of this matter was placed before me in Chambers to be dealt with in accordance with Section 89 (2) (a (i) of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01]. More
This court allowed respondent’s appeal against the decision of applicant’s Appeals Officer. The applicant is dissatisfied with that decision and seeks to approach the Supreme Court. This is therefore an application for leave to appeal in terms of section 92 F of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01]. More
The applicant was an employee of the respondent. Following allegations of misconduct, applicant was charged in terms of the respondent’s Code of Conduct.
Applicant was found liable and the employment contract was terminated. The applicant appealed to the NEC Appeals Board “the Board”. The Board after considering the matter remitted the case to the respondent to address the procedural irregularities identified by the Board. The Board did not address the merits of the case. More
At the onset of the appeal hearing the respondent raised a point in limine. It was to the effect that there was no proper respondent cited. The one cited “Ministry of Home Affairs” is a non-entity at law. It is not a natural person. Neither is it a legal persona. As such it cannot sue or be sued. There being no respondent, the matter must be struck off the roll.
The respondent opposed the point raised. They countered that the State Liabilities Act [Chapter 8:14] provides that the Minister responsible “may” be cited where it is intended to sue the... More
