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
This matter was placed before me as an Urgent Chamber Application. I soon directed that the Applicant serve the Respondents and the matter be set down for arguments. That was done. More
The First Respondent is employed by the Appellant. First Respondent was suspended from employment by the Appellant. The Appellant also reported the matter to the police resulting in the arrest of the First Respondent. The First Respondent’s bail conditions barred him from visiting his workplace. It is also common cause that First Respondent’s suspension was without salary and benefits. First Respondent referred his matter to Second Respondent and the latter determined that First Respondent’s suspension was illegal having regard to the provisions of the Code of Conduct. Appellant is dissatisfied with the decision and has approached this for relief. More
The applicant in this case neglected to look ahead. He was convicted on his own plea of guilty to contravening s 60A (3) (a) and (b) of the Electricity Act [Chapter 13:19] i.e. Tampers, Cuts, Damages, Destroys or Interferes with any Apparatus for Generating, Transmitting, Distributing or Supplying Electricity. The allegations in count 1 were that on 31 August 2021 he proceeded to a farm called Rathga in the district of Banket where he cut and vandalized copper wires that transmitted electricity. The wires were about 30 metres in length. In count 2 he was alleged to have in a... More
