After the release of the order in this case Order No LC/H/ORD/376/19 it has been noted that paragraph 3 of that order erroneously refers to $12904 instead of $1204. The order is accordingly corrected to read $1204 in paragraph 3 instead of $12904. More
On 31 May 2022, after hearing oral submissions by counsels, I dismissed the applicant’s application with costs on a higher scale in an extempore judgment. The applicant has asked for written reasons following the noting of an appeal. The following are the reasons. More
The appellant is a limited liability company registered and incorporated in terms of the laws of the Republic of Panama. It has its head office or principal place of business in Switzerland. The first respondent was one of the directors of Myramar Farming (Pvt) Ltd (Myramar), a limited liability company, registered in terms of the laws of Zimbabwe. On 3 April and 31 July 2012, the appellant extended loans to Myramar in the sums of US$ 845.000.00 and US$ 400.000.00 respectively. As security for these loans, the first respondent, together with six others, bound themselves as sureties and co-principal debtors... More
As background to the matter, parties submitted that after the 16/3/18 SC 357/16 order parties filed with the court a quantification application whose fate could not be sealed since all papers pertaining to same were lost when the Labour Court moved offices from Bristol house to the Rotten Row Labour Court building. In the instant application the applicant seeks 9 months back pay, 30 months damages, medical aid, pension and motor vehicle allowance. At the onset of the hearing the applicant dropped the medical aid claim and the motor vehicle allowance claim thus effectively leaving for determination the question of... More
At the onset of oral argument in this matter respondents raised 2 points in limine which applicant opposed. Thes points are:
1. That the application was filed prematurely:
2. That applicant does not have the right to file the application for review More
Applicant applied to this Court for the review of the determination by Respondent’s appeals committee which dismissed his appeal against the decision of the disciplinary committee. The application was made in terms of Section 92EE of the Labour Act Chapter 28:01 as read with Rule 20 of the Labour Court Rules S.I. 150/17. More
The applicants approached this court for a review of the decision of the first respondent to cancel their lease agreement which was issued under the land reform and resettlement programme. More
