The applicant is a serving member of the Zimbabwe Republic Police (ZRP) and holds the rank of constable. He filed this application through the urgent chamber book seeking an interim order for the stay of proceedings pending the outcome of two High Court applications he filed with this court. There cases are HC CAPP 55/23 and HC CAPP 61/23. More
The following are the reasons informing my decision to dismiss applicant’s quest to have the decision of the 1st respondent set aside on review. The reasons are and provided at the behest of the applicant who has since mounted an appeal against that decision. The review application attacked the decision of the 1st respondent to refuse discharge the applicant at the close of the case for the prosecution. The applicant is currently on trial in terms of internal disciplinary proceedings conducted under the Police Act, [Chapter 11:10]. More
The appellant was employed by the first respondent as a Finance Manager on a five-year fixed term contract for the period 1 July 2016 to 30 June 2021. The contract was terminated on three months’ notice which expired on 30 December 2020. The appellant was aggrieved by the termination and approached the second respondent, a labour officer with a claim for unlawful dismissal. More
The applicant is an accused in a criminal trial at Harare Magistrates Courts in which he faces two counts of fraud as defined in s 136 (a) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) act [Chapter 9:23] hereinafter referred to as (“The Code”). More
The Respondent is a Risk and Compliance Manager under the employ of the Appellant. On 11 March 2021 the Respondent spilled tea on his office laptop leading to the machine malfunctioning and it was sent for repairs at the cost of the Appellant. Following upon the report being made the Appellant conducted an investigation and findings were made that Respondent had contravened Clause 3.7 of the ICT Policy which has provisions that prohibit consumption of food and drinks near computers and all ICT hardware. This policy was said to be well known to the Respondent who had committed himself to... More
Appellant appealed to this Court against his dismissal from employment by Respondent. The appeal was made in terms of section 92D of the Labour Act Chapter 28:01.
Respondent opposed the appeal. The grounds of appeal read thus,
1. The Chairperson of the Disciplinary Committee grossly erred and misdirected himself in making a finding that the Appellant was grossly inefficient in the performance of his duties in circumstances where the allegations were not supported by any of the evidence led in oral testimony.
2. The Chairperson of the Disciplinary Committee grossly erred and misdirected himself in shifting the burden of proof... More
On the 16th December 2022 at Harare Designated Agent G. Mudzengi issued a determination. He ordered appellant (employer) to reinstate respondent (employee) or pay her damages for loss of
employment. The employer then appealed the determination to this Court in terms of section 92D of the Labour Act Chapter 28:01. More
