Applicants applied to this Court for quantification of damages for loss of employment. 1st Respondent opposed the appeal.
The matter arises from the order issued by this Court on 24th October 2022. The order nullified the dismissal from of employment of applicants (employees) by the 1st respondent (employer) and remitted the matter to the employer for a rehearing within thirty (30) days. If the employer did not comply, it was ordered to reinstate the employees or pay them damages either agreed by the parties or assessed by this Court. More
The applicant was employed as a Finance Manager and Director for 18 years. He was charged with Misconduct and was dismissed from employment in February 2013. He appealed against the dismissal and Honourable arbitrator W T Pasipanodya ruled in his favour. The applicant then appeared before Honourable TC Sengwe for quantification of damages. More
The applicant approached this court seeking rescission of default judgment granted against him and in favor of the first respondent on 19 August 2020 under case number. HC 10389/17. The application is made in terms of R 27(1) of the High Court Rules, 2021 (‘High Court Rules’). The first respondent’s opposing affidavit was deposed by one John Nyakamha hereinafter referred to as John (the first respondent’s father) by virtue of a general power of attorney to represent her. It is upon this background that the applicant raised issues over the opposing affidavit as being improperly commissioned and prayed that it... More
The background of this matter is that applicants and respondents have a dispute regarding issues at the 8th and 9th respondents being a church in Zimbabwe but also headquartered internationally overseas. Applicants are disgruntled with the manner in which the constitution of the church in Zimbabwe from the founding affidavit and the rest of the papers although the draft order (clause (9)) thereof is relating to the constitution of 1st respondent yet 1st respondent per the founding affidavit is a natural person. There is seemingly a problem there. The applicants also have an issue with the way they were evicted... More
1. This is an appeal against the decision of the designated authority upholding the decision of the disciplinary committee. The appeal raised three grounds on conviction and two on the penalty. However in court it was agreed that there was only one ground on the conviction which is that there was no adequate evidence to convict on the charges raised. On the penalty it was agreed that if the charge was proved the penalty would be appropriate going by precedent of such cases as Innscor v Letron Chimoto SC 6/2012. The parties thus argued on the sufficiency of the evidence... More
This is an appeal against the decision that led to appellant’s dismissal from employment following allegations that he had given false information relating to duplicated bar code 106 which could have resulted in loss of the company’s roll of electric cable. More
The applicants together with other seven co-accused persons are charged with five counts of armed robbery as defined in terms of s 126 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23] (“the Criminal Code”). More
