Two minor children both of whom were/are in primary school and a non-governmental organization which describes itself as Care At The Core of Humanity (“CATCH’) sued the first, second, third and fourth respondents all of whom are government functionaries whom they accused of having discriminated against them when they, as government, introduced radio lessons for primary school children during the Covid 19 pandemic. The minor children and CATCH filed their application under s 85 (1) of the constitution of Zimbabwe. More
This is an urgent application. This application was first was set down for 20 March 2023. At the commencement of the hearing on 20 March Mr. Chinyoka for the first respondent made an application for a postponement. Counsel submitted that the first respondent was served with a notice of set down without a copy of the chamber application, and requested that the matter be postponed to enable the first respondent to prepare and file a notice of opposition. The request for a postponement was not opposed, it was granted and the matter was then postponed to 30 March 2023 at... More
This is an application for the review of the decision by the Chief Finance Officer in a labour dispute pitting the employee and the respondent employer. The only issue for determination is whether it was wrong for the Chief Finance Officer to preside over an appeal which should have been presided over the Chief Operating Officer in terms of the respondents Code of Conduct. It is not in dispute that notwithstanding the reference to Chief Operating Officer in the Code such office has ceased to function and the Chief Finance Officer occupies the position at the same level with the... More
This is an urgent application. The applicant seeks a provisional order couched in the following terms:
Terms of the final order sought
That you show cause to this Honorable Court why a final order should not be made on the following terms: -
i. That 1st respondent levies applicant in terms of the Tariff of Sheriff’s Fees and Charges.
ii. That the fee should be in terms of section 6(1)(a) of SI 195 of 2022 as read with section 6(1)(b)(ii) of the Statutory Instrument.
iii. Costs on a punitive scale against respondent jointly and severally. More
On 8 January 2020, the High Court ordered the appellant to pay to the first respondent:
1. the sum of US$877 435 being the outstanding meteorological weather services fees (Met fees) for the period January 2006 to 30 April 2014;
2. all and further outstanding Met fees from 1 May 2014 to the date of final payment;
3. interest on the above sums at the prescribed rate from the date of the service of summons to date of final payment; and
4. costs of suit on a legal practitioner and client scale. More
The applicant was employed by the respondent as an environmental health technician. He was charged with three acts of misconduct in terms of the Labour( National Employment Code of Conduct) Regulations, Statutory Instrument 15 of 2006 ( S.I. 15/06). Disciplinary proceedings were conducted against him. He was found guilty of all the three charges. He was penalized with dismissal. He appealed internally but his appeal failed. The applicant was aggrieved by the procedure adopted by the respondent in conducting the disciplinary proceedings hence this application. More
The Respondent was formerly employed by the Appellant as a Driver. He was dismissed from employment on 22 October 2021 following disciplinary proceedings. The charge that had been levelled was that of breach of Schedule 4;3 and 4:10 of the National Employment Council for Welfare and Educational Institutions (NECWEI) Employment Code of Conduct. More
