The facts of this case emanate from the effects of the Covid-19 pandemic. The pandemic had worldwide implications. The Respondent was obliged to close the doors to several of its hotels. Employees were required to stay at home. Respondent continued up to some stage to pay these employees when they were not offering any work. The record shows that the Respondent had several meetings with the employees’ representatives. Respondent resorted to paying 50% of the wages. It is also common cause that Respondent later retrenched a sizeable of the employees after having notified the Retrenchment Board which Board approved the... More
Appellant, appeared before the Regional Magistrate Court, Kadoma on two occasions seeking bail pending trial. He had been apprehended on two charges of armed robbery and possession of articles used in the commission of an offence, in contravention of ss126 and 140 of the Criminal Law Codification and Reform Act [Chapter,9:23], respectively. Of note, on his initial remand of the 2nd of May 2024, bail was opposed by the State, on the faith of the request of remand form and the investigating officer’s affidavit. When the appellant reappeared on the 8th of May 2024, the State was in possession of... More
The matter was placed before me as an application for condonation and extension of time within which to file an appeal. I issued an order in February of 2024 dismissing the application for condonation. Request for reasons for the order was made. Here are my reasons for the order. More
1. This is an application for the reinstatement of an appeal that was “dismissed” by the registrar in terms of subrule (b) of Rule 46 of the Labour Court Rules 2017. At the hearing of the application a preliminary point was raised by the respondent that the applicant could not be represented by the Commercial Workers’ Union because she was a managerial employee. It was further said that she was also not a member of that union anyway as there were no deductions made by the employer towards her membership of the union. The respondent referred to subsection (1) of... More
At the onset of oral argument in this Court respondent raised a point in limine which appellant opposed. The point was that appellant filed 2 documents which were not part of the proceedings in the tribunals a quo. It is expatiated in respondent’s heads of argument as follows:
“10. The first document purportedly signed on the 23rd of November 2019 seeks to suggest that cash deposits of RTGS $400 and RTGS $1 700 had been authorised by Susan Togarepi, also known as Susan Nyaradzo Mushaike, whilst the second document purportedly signed on the 25th of November 2019 seeks to suggest... More
Appellant appealed to this Court against his dismissal from employment by Respondent. The appeal was made in terms of Section 92D of the Labour Act Chapter 28:01. Respondent opposed the appeal. More
This is an appeal against the decision of the Chief Executive Officer finding appellant guilty and dismissing her from work on allegations of misconduct at the work place. Brief facts of the matter are that appellant who was in the respondent’s employment was charged with misconduct emanating from the facts that she had acted negligently and caused loss of the employer’s ticket book. She was found guilty of the infraction. She appealed to the Chief Executive Officer without success hence the instant appeal. More
