This is an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court in terms of section 92 F (2) of the Labour Act, (Chapter 28:01).
The developments in the matter are interesting. Respondent filed a Notice of Opposition as shown in the Opposing Affidavit from page 26 of the record. On the date of hearing, Applicant’s legal practitioner stated that they were raising a point in limine as Respondent had not filed heads of argument and further that Respondent was no longer opposing the application. More
The 1st to the 56th Respondents who are applicant employees brought a claim for alleged non-payment of outstanding salaries and the dispute was referred for adjudication in terms of section 63 of the Labour Act [chapter 28:01] (the Act). The designated agent made a determination on 20 November 2023. The applicant was dissatisfied with the determination and filed this application for review alleging procedural unfairness and bias. More
This is an application for review of the Disciplinary proceedings convened by the 2nd Respondent against the Applicant. The application is premised on Section 92 EE (1) of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01] as read with Rule 20 of the Labour Court Rules, 2017. More
This is an application for condonation for the late filing of an application for review. When the matter was first heard on 7 May 2024 both respondents were in default. The Court sought to seek clarifications from the 2nd respondent and invited him to Court. During the 2nd hearing on 3 July 2023, the 2nd respondent appeared in person. More
On 9th April 2024 this Court issued a default judgment in terms of which it set aside the determination by Designated Agent A. Chimedza. The determination had ruled that respondent unlawfully terminated applicant’s employment. On the 8th May 2024 applicant applied for the rescission of the default judgment. The application was made in terms of Section 92C of the Labour Act Chapter 28:01 as read with Rule 40 of the Labour Court Rules, 2017. Respondent opposed the application. More
This is an application for condonation for the late filing of an application for review and extension of time within which to apply for review of the proceedings held before the 1st respondent.
Background
The 2nd respondent was employed by the 3rd respondent as its managing director. He was charged with gross incompetence and inefficiency in terms of the governing regulations. He was found guilty and dismissed. He challenged the proceedings in an application for review which was successful and the 2nd respondent was reinstated without loss of salary or benefits. The 3rd respondent (the employer) was aggrieved and unsuccessfully... More
This is an application for direct access brought in terms of s 167(5) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe, as read with r 21 of the Constitutional Court Rules, 2016 (the Rules). The applicant seeks an order allowing it to approach this Court directly so as to challenge the decision by the Supreme Court, under SC 11-24, wherein it ordered the applicant to pay the respondent damages arising from the unlawful termination of her employment, such damages to be paid at the prevailing interbank rate. More
