This is an application for rescission of judgment issued in default against the applicant on 15 April 2015.
The Respondent opposed the application and raised preliminary objections that:
1. The application is totally defective for non-compliance with the Rules of this court in that applicant has adopted an incorrect form and;
2. The application is out of time. More
This is an application for Review. The question of jurisdiction and prescription have been raised on behalf of the applicant. The sole ground for review is therefore:
“Absence of jurisdiction on part of the Disciplinary Committee on the basis that the matter has prescribed.”
The matter is presently still pending before the respondents. This is so as the applicant raised a preliminary issue that the matter had prescribed and could therefore not be heard by the Disciplinary Committee as this would be in violation of s94 of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01] (the Act).
The applicant was charged with the... More
This is an application for Summary Judgment in terms of Order 10 Rule 64 of the Rules of this court. The background of the case is that the applicant who is the plaintiff in the main matter issued summons against the respondent. In his summons, applicant claims the sum of $40 697-19 from the respondent. More
This is an application for condonation for late filing of an application for review.
Factual Background
The applicant who was employed by the 2nd respondent was charged with Habitual and substantial neglect of his duties in terms of section 4 (g) of Statutory Instrument 15/2006.
He was found guilty and dismissed. His internal appeals were not successful and the matter was eventually referred to a Labour Officer More
Applicant has filed this application for rescission of judgment seeking to rescind an order granted by this court on 2 March 2020 under HC 138/20 which order was to the effect of appointing 1st respondent as a curator bonis of the applicant’s estate. Applicant alleges that on 21 January 2020 1st respondent sought an order through an ex parte application to the effect that applicant was of poor health and therefore was mentally incapacitated and could not control her life and decisions. 1st respondent was then granted such an order ex parte. More
On 15 August 2019, the High Court (the court a quo) issued a provisional order for the provisional winding up of the appellant at the instance of the respondents who are its former employees. The court a quo confirmed the provisional liquidation order by judgment delivered on 20 November 2019. This appeal is against the judgment confirming the liquidation. More
The sole issue for determination in this case is whether the first respondent is an employer within the energy industry and is thereby bound by the Collective Bargaining Agreement: Zimbabwe Energy Industry, Statutory Instrument 50 of 2012 (the CBA). The issue was placed before the Labour Court for determination and it found that the first respondent is not an employer in the energy industry and is thus not bound by the requisite CBA. This is an appeal against that decision. More
