The respondent was employed by the appellant as a revenue officer. He was charged with an act of misconduct in terms of the appellant’s code of conduct (the code) for : ‘Gross negligence in the execution of duties.’ According to the applicable code this falls under ‘Group D-Most Serious Offences’. The matter was later referred to a labour officer in terms of S101(6) of the Labour Act Chapter 28:01 (the Act).On 11December 2020 the Labour Officer, L Nhandara , made a determination that the appellant had wrongly charged the respondent. In the circumstances the Labour Officer ordered the appellant to... More
The applicant is a body corporate established in terms of the laws of Zimbabwe. The respondent is employed by the applicant as a Revenue Specialist. The respondent was charged with acts of misconduct in that she failed to carry out a proper clearance of a motor vehicle which is a D25 offence in terms of the applicant’s code of conduct. On 24 January 2020 the dispute was referred to a Labour Officer for determination of the alleged misconduct as the applicant’s disciplinary committee could not sit. More
This is an appeal against the decision of the High Court, Bulawayo (the court a quo) which granted an order compelling the appellant to reimburse the respondent the sum of USD 63 378.00 being duty for the importation of a motor vehicle. More
This is an appeal against the whole judgment of the High Court (the court a quo) which granted a declaratory order in favour of the respondent to the effect that the appellant could not issue replacement notices of revised tax assessments. This is because the revised assessments had been invalidated and set aside in an earlier decision of this Court. More
The Notice of Appeal in casu was served on the respondent on the 11th April 2024. In terms of Rule 19(2) of the Labour Court Rules SI 150/17 a respondent is required to file his/her response within ten (10) days of receipt of the appeal. Thus, the respondent in casu was required to file his response on or by 26 April 2024. According to his own word he tried to file the response on that date but failed due to “a technical challenge.” He then filed a Response which was uploaded on the 6th May 2024. That is the only... More
The applicants seek a declaratory order in terms of s 85(1) of the Constitution as read with s 14 of the High Court Act [Chapter 7:06]. They argue that because the Constitution in s 65, entrenched the right to collective bargaining and to organize, the current scenario where public servants are precluded from doing so is not only untenable but also unconstitutional. They contend that the perception that the right to collective bargaining is being implemented is a facade because what is being undertaken currently is simply a consultative process based on the provisions of the repealed Constitution. That they... More
On 14 February 2020 the plaintiff sued out of this court summons against the defendant seeking an order for specific performance or alternatively the payment of damages for breach of contract in the sum of $4 560 000. In terms of the former, the plaintiff averred that the defendant had reneged on his undertaking under an agreement to avail his farm (Lot 16 of lot 10A, Chicago, Kwekwe) to the plaintiff to subside and develop into residential stands. According to the plaintiff it was a term of the agreement that upon the completion of the project the plaintiff would share... More
