The respondent is a former employee of the applicant. He was employed as a salesman/driver until October 2013 when he was dismissed from employment. The employment relationship was terminated after allegations of misconduct were levelled against the respondent. The dismissal was pursuant to disciplinary proceedings that were conducted in October 2013. The respondent sought to challenge that dismissal, and that decision led to a plethora of litigation proceedings in different forums. More
The respondent was employed by the applicant as Head Administration: As part of his employment benefits he was allocated a motor vehicle for his duties namely a Toyota Hilux registration number ABD 8617 (the vehicle). On 3 June 2011, the applicant terminated the respondent’s contract of employment following disciplinary proceedings in terms of the National Code of Conduct. When the respondent was on suspension he was allowed to use the vehicle. The respondent challenged the dismissal by noting an appeal to the Labour Relations Office. The matter is still pending. The applicant then instituted the present proceedings seeking to recover... More
The bulkiness of this application gives the impression that the matter before me is complicated and involved yet it is a straight-forward application in which the applicant applies for relief as set out in the draft order as follows:
“IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1. The first respondent’s decision made on the 13th of October, 2021 in dismissing the application for a postponement and ordering the hearing to proceed in the absence of applicant’s legal practitioners be and is hereby set aside.
2. The proceedings in State v Tendai Laxton BitiCRB HreP 11362/20 pending first (sic) before first respondent be and... More
This is a chamberapplication made in terms of s 92F (3) of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01] (the Labour Act) “as read with r 60 (2) and r 61”of the Supreme Court Rules, 2018’ (the Rules). The applicant seeks condonation and extension of time within which to seek leave to appeal against the whole decision of the Labour Court. More
This court application is brought in terms of Order 32 of the High Court Rules, 1971 (before they were repealed) as read with section 175 (6) and section 85 (1) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe.
Order 32 deals with the procedure for applications. Section 175 (6) of the Constitution provides that; “(6) When deciding a constitutional matter within its jurisdiction a court may—
(a) declare that any law or conduct that is inconsistent with the Constitution is invalid to the extent of the inconsistency;
(b) make any order that is just and equitable, including an order limiting the retrospective effect... More
This application was initially set down for hearing on the 8th of February 2022. The applicant, then a self-actor, made an application for a postponement on the basis that he had engaged a legal practitioner but had not yet finalised with him. Although the application was opposed, the court granted the application and indicated to him that the matter would proceed on the 11th of February 2022. On that date, the applicant’s legal practitioner appeared and indicated that the Advocate whom they had engaged had advised him that morning that she was unavailable due to ill-health. The court indicated that... More
The applicant is the former registered owner of an immovable property known as a certain piece of land situate in the District of Salisbury called Stand 425 Marlborough Township Extension 2 of Marlborough measuring 6 808 square metres which he held under Deed of Transfer Number 10289/2002 (the property). The property was sold in execution of a judgment debt of US$39, 000.00 and costs of suit granted in favour of the third respondent herein against the applicant and Micromart (Private) Limited (Micromart) on 15 February 2016, under HC 9923/14. The second respondent purchased the property from a Sheriff’s sale. Its... More
