This is an appeal for a matter heard in terms of the National Code, S.I. 15 of 2006. The appeal was filed on the 23rd of October 2023. This was after the promulgation of Amendment Act No 11 of 2023. This amendment amended subsection (5) of Section 101. The amendment is to the effect that a party aggrieved by a ruling at the workplace or the process may appeal to a labour officer. Instead of doing so the appellant appealed directly to the Labour Court. A point in limine on the impropriety of the procedure was taken. More
On the 25th April 2023 at Harare, applicant in his capacity as a Labour Officer, issued a ruling. He ordered 1st respondent (employer) to pay 2nd respondent (employee) an amount of US12,000-00 as damages for unlawful termination of employment. Apparently, the employer did not comply with the ruling. Then applicant applied to this Court for the confirmation of his ruling in terms of section 93(5a) of the Labour Act Chapter 28:01 hereafter called the Act. More
Applicant applied to this Court for the review of her dismissal from employment by
Respondent. The application was made in terms of sections 89(1) and 92 EE of the Labour
Act Chapter 28:01. Respondent opposed the application. More
On 24 August 2023, acting in terms of r 56 (2) of the Supreme Court Rules, 2018, the applicant filed the present chamber application for the review of the first respondent (taxing officer)’s decision. On 1 August 2023, the first respondent declined to award to the applicant the United States dollar denominated disbursements, which it had paid to its own counsel, at the interbank rate prevailing on the date of taxation. Instead, the first respondent awarded the applicant these costs in RTGS dollars at the interbank rate prevailing on the date on which the applicant had voluntarily paid counsel in... More
This is an appeal against the decision of the National Employment Council for the welfare and Educational Institutions, appeals committee.
Background
The respondent was engaged by the appellant as a Human Resources Officer. Allegations of misconduct were raised against her that she had misrepresented facts to Tear Fund. She was dismissed on 13 September 2021. The appellant (employer) stated that she had pleaded guilty to the allegations. She appealed to the appeals authority which set aside the dismissal penalty on procedural grounds and invited the parties to appear before it and make representation as to mitigation and aggravation. The respondent... More
The applicant’s case as presented in the pleadings, in brief, is that around 25 July 2022, he agreed with the first respondent that he would bring his car, Mercedes Benz, Registration number AEX 8962 (hereinafter called “the vehicle”) to the first respondent’s garage for repairs. The applicant further alleged that he intended to sell the vehicle after repairs. The applicant further alleges that he did not authorise the first respondent to sell the vehicle. It is the applicant’s case that he agreed with the first respondent that the vehicle would be repaired within three days. 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]. The grounds of appeal were initially quadruple. Appellant then abandoned ground 1, 3 and 4 leaving only ground (2) two for determination. Ground (2) two is quoted thus as follows:
“Both the hearing officer and the appeals Committee failed to note and casted a blind eye on the contradictions between the charge sheet at the loss controllers report and the subsequent apologies by the loss controllers thereof. In the circumstances the hearing officer... More
