This is an appeal from the decision of the Magistrates’ Court sitting at Harare handed down on 9 January 2024.The first Respondent issued summons for the eviction of the Appellant and all those claiming occupation through him from Kingsmead House, 154 Mbuya Nehanda Street, Harare. Further, first Respondent claimed payment of arrear rentals and holding over damages. Appellant entered appearance to defend but failed to file a plea within the prescribed time. A default judgment was issued. Appellant approached the lower court seeking the rescission of the default judgment. He filed a hybrid application which was for upliftment of Bar... More
Applicants applied to this Court for the review of their retrenchment from employment by respondents. The application was made in terms of Section 89(1) (d1) of the Labour Act Chapter 28:01 hereafter called the Act. Respondents opposed the application. More
The contest for the seat of member of parliament for the Bikita East Constituency in the August 2023 harmonized elections was a two-horse pitting the petitioner and the respondent. They did so on the tickets of the Zimbabwe African National Union (Patriotic Front) (ZANU PF) and the Citizens Coalition for change (CCC) parties respectively. At the conclusion of that election the respondent was declared duly elected having garnered 9880 votes against the petitioner’s 7544 votes. The petitioner seeks a nullification of the result of that election. He claims that these results are not a true reflection of the will of... More
On the 7th May 2024 at Harare Arbitrator FV Marovanyika issued an award. She upheld 1st respondent’s (employee) claim of constructive dismissal from employment by appellant (employer). The employer then appealed to this Court in terms; of Section 98 (10) of the Labour Act Chapter 28:01 hereafter called the Act. More
This is an application for review in terms of which the applicants seek the setting aside of the decision of the fourth respondent rendered on 13 May 2022 under ACC 26/21 and judgment number AC 7/22. Additionally, the applicants also seek costs of suit against the first, second and third respondents jointly and severally, the one paying the others to be absolved. More
Applicant applied to this Court for the review of her dismissal from employment by Respondent. The application was made in terms of section 89(1) (d1) of the Labour Act Chapter 28:01 hereafter called the Act. Respondent opposed the application More
Applicant submitted that respondent’s opposing affidavit was not properly commissioned because it does not show the date when the Commissioner of Oaths signed it.
Applicant further submitted that the typed date above the deponent’s signature is not enough. More
