Appellant was employed by the respondent. He is alleged to have stolen goods from the employer. He was brought before a Disciplinary Committee which found him guilty and recommended his dismissal. The appellant appealed to the NEC for the Commercial Sectors Mashonaland Local Joint Committee which committee confirmed the respondent’s decision. A further appeal to the Negotiating Committee did not yield the desired result. Appellant has thus approached this court for relief. More
After perusing documents filed of record and hearing counsel, the unanimous decision of the Court was that the matter be dismissed with costs on a legal practitioner and client scale. More
Appellant was the chairman of the Workers Committee (WC) of Chemplex Holdings Ltd and its subsidiaries including respondent. He also worked for respondent as a machine operator. Respondent carried out an exercise to avoid retrenchment. One of the measures considered was putting employees on short time. The employees were aggrieved by the measures. They appealed to this court under reference LC/H/278/13. They were represented by their trade union (tu). More
The basis for the application is that the applicant failed to apply for leave on time because he got to know of the appeal judgment later than the hand down date of the same. He also argues that he has a bona fide case on the merits of his leave application because he is satisfied that the essential elements of the theft which saw him lose his job were not canvassed properly. He therefore believes that the Supreme Court can find that no theft took place but that only a misunderstanding between him and the guards ensued when he was... More
On 9th November 2015 at Harare, Arbitrator L. Sigauke issued an arbitration award. He dismissed Appellant’s claim of constructive dismissal from employment by Respondent. Appellant then appealed to this Court. Respondent opposed the appeal. More
This is an appeal against an arbitral award handed down on 20 January 2015, in terms of which the respondent was awarded damages for loss of employment. More
The appellant was employed as an accountant by the respondent’s engineering division.
He was arraigned before a disciplinary committee for acts of misconduct. He was found guilty of unsatisfactory work performance. He was dismissed.
This appeal is against the decision to find him guilty and to dismiss him. But in heads of argument filed in appellant’s behalf, the issue of conviction is not argued it may be that the appellant had decided to abandon it and merely base his appeal on challenging the penalty imposed. More
