This is an appeal against the decision of the High Court (the ‘court a quo’) dated 20 August 2020. The court a quo dismissed the first appellant’s application for rescission of a judgment which had been granted in default. After hearing submissions from counsel the appeal was allowed with costs. The reasons for this decision are outlined hereunder. More
The appellant appeals against part of the judgment of the High Court sitting at Bulawayo that was handed down on 20 May 2021. The court a quo ordered the respondent to pay to the appellant delictual damages in the sum of US$ 66 789.80 in local currency converted at the parity rate of one-on-one as between the two currencies.
On 18 September 2009, the first respondent’s locomotive hit and damaged the first appellant’s horse and trailer, which were stuck at a railroad level crossing in Somabula. The appellants issued summons on 29 June 2010, claiming damages in the sum of... More
On 2 March 2022, the applicants noted an appeal to this Court under case number SCB 30/22 against the judgment of the Labour Court handed down on 23 July 2021. They were legally represented. Having been employed by the respondent on fixed-term contracts of lengths varying from four to seven years, the applicants sought to challenge the Labour Court’s decision which concluded that they had no basis for legitimate expectations of reemployment by the respondent. More
2. The respondent is a company which engaged in mining activities. It also sometimes hires out its state-of-the-art equipment to other mining companies. The board of the company comprises three individuals being Ofer Sivan, Munyaradzi Gonyora and Gilad Shabtai. Gilad Shabtai is the board chairperson. Sometime in 2011 Ofer Sivan was appointed Director and from around 2015 he spearheaded the company as its Managing Director.
3. The appellants were employees of the respondent who, it is alleged, have since been suspended from employment.
4. At some stage Ofer Sivan allegedly misappropriated trust funds in excess of USD $1 500 000.00.... More
1. This is an appeal against the decision of the Labour Court (‘the court a quo’) wherein the court dismissed the appellants’ application for review after finding that the appellants had elected the wrong procedure in proceeding by way of review as opposed to an appeal. After hearing submissions by both counsel, the court dismissed the appeal and indicated that the reasons for the decision would be furnished in due course. The reasons follow hereunder. More
This is the unanimous decision of this Court. This is an appeal against the whole judgment of the High Court handed down on 25 January 2021 dismissing the appellant’s claims for recognition as the legitimate Medical Professionals and Allied Workers Union and ancillary relief.
The court a quo found that the meetings of 30 and 31 January 2018 had been meetings of the National Council of the Union and that not only were they properly convened but they also constituted a quorum. It also found that there was a breach of the constitution of the union in convening the congress... More
The first applicant is the erstwhile Mining Commissioner for Masvingo a post which he says has since been abolished. No issue arises from the said abolition of post. The second applicant is a quasi-judicial board established in terms of s 6 of the Mines and Minerals Act [Chapter 21:05] whereas the third applicant is the Minister responsible for the administration of the Act. On the other hand the respondent is a mining concern holding various mining blocks within the first applicant’s area of jurisdiction. More
