This is an application for the condonation of late noting of an appeal and extension of time within which to note the appeal. The respondent employer is opposed to the grant of condonation relief citing the fact that such is not well founded. More
The historical narrative is that, the first and third applicants are brothers borne of the same father, whilst the second is a wife to their late brother. The dispute revolves around their stay and occupation of a once family property, farm 27 Chitomborwizi East, Chinhoyi. The farm is said to have originated from their biological father Johannes Ngandu Chiguvare who was the original occupier or acquirer in the late 1940s. Somehow, their late father is said to have donated his rights and interests in the said farm to one of his sons, a brother to the two applicants, Antonio Mapfumo... More
The appellant was employed as a general hand by the respondent and was stationed at Marondera Provincial Hospital. The respondent charged him with an act of misconduct. It was alleged in a letter dated 18 July 2022 that he was being charged with an act of misconduct in terms of the Labour National code of Conduct Regulations Statutory Instrument 15/2006, Section 4 paragraph (d) which reads “theft or fraud” More
This is an application for the confirmation of a draft ruling by the applicant in terms of Section 93 of the Labour Act [ Chapter 28:01] (the Act). The applicant in casu presided over the quantification of amounts claimed by the employees from their employer, the 1st responded. More
On the 24th of July 2023 this court dismissed the applicant’s urgent chamber application. The application was filed on the 22nd July 2023 and the hearing subject of the application was on the 26th July 2023.3. The applicants argued that the decision to further suspend them and go on to hold a hearing on the same charges was grossly irregular. They wrote to the respondent pointing out the irregularity and asking it to stop the process. The respondent did not oblige hence the urgent chamber application. More
The new High Court Rules being Statutory Instrument 202 of 2021 have ushered in challenges in as much as they have brought clarity in certain areas. The need to revisit and streamline the rules for the attainment of clarity, cohesion and practicality much needed to regulate and maintain a coherent justice delivery system calls for urgent attention. Rules should not have gaps nor leave the litigants or the court in a quandary as to what next to do in pursuing a certain procedure. Rule 42 is one such provision that requires attention as this case has shown. More
Appellant worked for Respondent as an Acting Plant Operator. He was dismissed from employment for misconduct. He appealed to the employer’s appeals authority which turned down his appeal. He then appealed to this Court in terms of section 92D of the Labour Act Chapter 28:01. His grounds of appeal were initially three-fold. More
