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 judgment is in respect of an appeal which is cited by the appellant employee as an appeal against the verdict of the General Manager Appeals Authority dated 20 October 2023 and the NEC Appeals Committee decision of 17 November 2023. 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 applicant and the second respondent as named in the heading are duly registered companies in terms of the laws of Zimbabwe. The first and third respondents are statutory juristic entities created respectively under the Rural District Council Act [Chapter 23:13] and the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act [Chapter 22:23]. The applicant did not seek any relief against the third respondent which was cited as an interested party that superintends public procurement by procuring authorities in Zimbabwe as defined in that legislation. The dispute which has led to the applicant filing this review application as contended by... More
