On the 1st November 2021 at Harare, F. Mutambirwa N.O. in her capacity as a
Designated Agent (DA) made a determination. She ordered appellant (employer) to pay
respondent (employee) various amounts of money for outstanding service pay, notice pay,
leave pay, overtime, unpaid wages and housing allowance. The employer then appealed the
determination to this Court in terms of section 92D of the Labour Act Chapter 28:01. The
employee opposed the appeal. More
The Respondent, through its Notice of Response and Heads of Argument has taken a point in limine. The Respondent contends that the grounds of appeal do not conform to Rule 19 (1) and more particularly Form LC4 of the Labour Court rules, 2017 in that the grounds of appeal are not clear and concise. The Respondent further contends that grounds of appeal 4, 7 and 8 amount to narrations of events, they do not amount to grounds of appeal. The Respondent’s prayer is that the appeal ought to therefore be struck off the roll on this basis More
The appellant is a former CID detective in the Zimbabwe Republic Police who was, prior to disengagement, based at Harare Central Police Station. He, along with one of his co-accused, Given Mushore, are serving a term of three years imprisonment for unlawful entry committed in aggravating circumstances and a term of thirty years imprisonment for murder. This followed their conviction and sentence by the High Court of Zimbabwe sitting at Harare (the court a quo) on 17 August 2022. The court a quo ordered the two sentences to run concurrently. More
This is an appeal against the decision of the National Hearing Committee which upheld the decision of the Hearing Committee.
The brief facts are that Appellant was employed by the Respondent. He is alleged to have inflated his overtime claims. He was charged and brought before the Hearing Committee which found him guilty and recommended his dismissal. Dissatisfied with this decision, Appellant appealed to the National Hearing Committee which proceeded to uphold the decision of the Hearing Committee. Appellant has now approached this Court for relief. More
The parties in this matter have been engaged in protracted litigation that commenced with the plaintiff issuing summons against the defendant in May 2016. In the summons, the claim is stated as follows:
a) “Payment in the total sum of ($30 286 747.86) Thirty Million Two Hundred and Eighty-Six Thousand Seven Hundred and Forty-Seven United States Dollars and Eighty-Six Cents.
b) Interest on the above amount from 15 February 2016 being date of demand to date of full payment.
c) Costs of suit.
Being payment for architectural services rendered by Plaintiff to defendant at Defendant’s specific request and instance during... More
The background to this matter is that on 20 February 2024 the respondent as applicant in case number HCBC 371/24 obtained against the applicant as respondent a provisional order from this court (per NDLOVU J), whose interim relief is couched as follows:
Pending determination of this matter, the Applicant is granted the following relief -
The Respondent be and are (sic) hereby ordered and directed to allow the Applicant to take delivery of 700 tonnes of coke in terms of the Memorandum of Understanding of the 30th December 2022. More
