This is an appeal against the appellant’s dismissal from the respondent’s employment. He appealed internally but the appeal failed. The appellant was employed by the respondent as a Procurement Officer. He was charged with three (3) counts of violating section 4(a ) of the National Employment Code of Conduct Statutory Instrument 15 of 2006 (S.I.15/06). More
This is an appeal against conviction and sentence. The appellants were convicted after a trial, of attempted murder as defined in s 189(1)(b) as read with s 47(1)(b) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23]. They were each sentenced to 5 years imprisonment of which 2 years imprisonment was suspended for 5 years on condition of good behaviour, leaving an effective imprisonment period of 3 years. More
On 8 November in 2016, the plaintiffs instituted proceedings in this court against the first to third defendants. The bone of contention between the parties was a property known as Lot 2 Block MM Ardbernnie Township, measuring 1,8577 hectares (“the property”). When this matter first came before me, the parties agreed that it proceeds as a stated case in terms of Rule 52 of the High Court Rules. The statement of agreed facts filed by the parties is quite voluminous, but what can be gleaned from it is the following: More
Residents of Dandazi surburb which is in Bindura are former workers of Ashanti Gold Mine. These were subjected to evictions from houses which they acquired through their employer-employee scheme the moment that they left employment at the mine. To ensure that their former employer would not evict them from, and repossess, the houses which they occupied, the residents made up their minds to speak against the evictions and/or repossession of their houses with one voice. They formed Dandazi Residence Association (“the association”). More
The determination or decision sought to be appealed and reviewed is dated 9th January, 2023. Rules 19 and 20 of the Labour Court Rules S.I. 150/17 require that matter should be brought to Court within 21 (twenty-one) days of the impugned decision. The 21-day period in casu expired on 7th February 2023. The appeal/review is date stamped the 14th February 2023. Therefore, ex-facie the relevant documents the matter was filed out of time. However, applicant averred that he uploaded his papers on the 3rd February 2023, but the Registrar only stamped them on 14th February 2023. There is nothing on... More
This matter came before me as an urgent chamber application. The applicant sought and obtained an order against respondent before ZHOU J in HC 723/23. The terms of the said order are as follows:
“In the result, IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1. Judgment be and is hereby granted in favour of the applicant against the respondent for payment of:
(a) the sum of US$10 718 373.51
(b) interest on the above sum of money at 2% per month from the date of this judgment and
(c) costs of suit on the attorney-client scale.” More
This is an urgent court application for an order directing the respondent to pay the sum of US$13 824 163.22 to the applicant together with costs of suit on the attorney-client scale. The claim arises from an agreement between the parties in terms of which the applicant rendered contract mining services to the respondent. The application is opposed by the respondent. More
