This is an application for the quantification of damages due to the applicant employee following his successful review application with the Labour Court in a labour dispute pitting him and the respondents. Applicant is seeking to be paid a composite USD 428 360-01 being backpay from the date of his unlawful dismissal to the date of the success of his review application and 48 months damages in lieu of reinstatement. The respondent employer is opposed to the grant of such relief. It reasons that applicant is only entitled to 6 months worth of damages at the rate of US 486... More
Appellant Appealed to this Court against his dismissal from employment by Respondent. The appeal is provided for by section 92D of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01]. Respondent opposed the appeal.
The grounds of appeal were four-fold. More
The applicant and respondent’s late father were boyfriend and girlfriend who had been together as life partners for a period spanning over 14 years. They jointly purchased the immovable property in which applicant currently resides. Applicant was awarded a lifelong usufruct over the property. Upon his father’s death, respondent was appointed executor of his Estate. The estate also has a half share of the property known as number 2 Vair Close, Burniside Bulawayo. Respondent frequently visits the property to ensure that the property is well looked after. The applicant approached the Magistrates’ Court in terms of the Domestic Violence Act... More
The Applicant submits that he was employed by 2nd Respondent as a Mechanic at its Mining site in Mutoko. On 21 April 2022 2nd Respondent summarily dismissed him from work. The Applicant challenged the dismissal and was reinstated to his position with effect from 27 July, 2022. Applicant submits that upon his return, he only worked for two days and on 3rd August 2020 he was advised to stop working. He was later chased from the company premises after he resisted the 1st respondent’s effort to have him resign on his own. On 10 August 2022 he wrote to 2nd... More
This is an Acquillian action arising from a sordid story of an innocent 12 year old by-stander whose foot was crashed by a falling robot pole. Plaintiff instituted proceedings against all defendants claiming an order for:
(i) Medical and hospital expenses (past) US$6 887,00.
(ii) Future medical expenses US$567 700,00.
(iii) Pain and suffering (past and prospective) US$70 000,00.
(iv) Permanent bodily disfigurement US$80 000,00.
(v) Loss of amenities US$70 000,00 and
(vi) Interest at the prescribed rate from 17 November 2011; and
(vii) Costs on an attorney and client scale. More
On the 1th August 2023 Respondent’s disciplinary authority issued a final written warning to Appellant. The warning is valid for 12(twelve) months, Appellant then appealed to this Court in terms of section 92D of the Labour Act Chapter 28:01. Respondent opposed the appeal. More
Applicants claimed that over the years, the executive committee in the form of 1st to 8th respondents have failed to adhere to the terms of the Constitution in that they have not presented any audited accounts, have not presented any budget for approval, have not presented any income and expenditure account notwithstanding the fact that they had received payment of royalties from hunting activities in the name and under the payment issued to the association by the Department of Parks and Wildlife. The executive committee in the meantime sought and obtained hunting permits at least twice before and for the... More
