It is a requirement for the law that all persons facing criminal charges are tried whilst they will be coming from home. However, in some cases a person charged with an offence may have to remain in custody till the day the court pronounces its verdict or its sentence. That is an exception to the general rule. In this case the appellants were arrested and appeared at Bulawayo Magistrates Court facing stock theft charges wherein their prayer for bail was refused by the court. They proceeded to approach this court challenging that decision to refuse them bail. More
The applicant was charged of acts of misconduct at the workplace. The procedure for the hearing was that there would be a hearing committee and a prosecutor/presenter of the case. At the hearing the prosecutor (who is late) entered into a plea bargain with the applicant’s counsel. Unfortunately the plea bargain was not disclosed to the hearing committee as such. The applicant was heard and he apparently pleaded guilty and was convicted. However the penalty did not follow the plea bargain. The Applicant appealed to the Appeals Committee but did not raise the review issues. It is noted that Codes... More
This is an appeal against the respondent’s decision to dismiss the appellant. The appellant raised 3 grounds of appeal. At the commencement of the appeal hearing a preliminary issue was raised on behalf of the respondent. The issue was whether or not grounds 1and2 of appeal were properly before the Court. After hearing and considering argument the Court upheld the preliminary issue and ruled that the two grounds were not properly before the Court More
Applicant applied to this Court for the review of his dismissal from employment by Respondent. The application was made in terms of sections 92 EE and 89(1) of the Labour Act Chapter 28:01. Respondent opposed the application. More
Appellant (employee) appealed to this Court against his dismissal from employment by respondent (employer). The appeal was made in terms of Section 92D of the Labour Act Chapter 28:01 hereafter called the Act. The employer opposed the appeal. More
The appellant was employed by the respondent as a processing officer and was stationed at Parirenyatwa Hospital Sub-office.
The appellant was charged with misconduct in terms of Section 44 (2) (a) as read with paragraph 3 of the 1st schedule of the Public Service Regulations SI 1 of 2000; failure to perform any work or duty properly assigned, a failure to obey a lawful instructions, including circulars, instructions or standing orders issued by the commission, the treasury or the accounting officer, the specific allegations were that she had improperly completed a notice of Birth of a child (BDI) forms in... More
[1] This is an appeal against the decision by an arbitrator.
[2] The appellant appealed on the grounds that: the arbitrator grossly erred at law and in fact as the dispute had prescribed and therefore lacked jurisdiction ; the arbitrator relied on the evidence of an audit report that was not placed before them; the appellant in her capacity as Office Manager /Administrator of the respondent was reposed with wider and more robust responsibilities which allowed her to conclude agreements as she did; the respondent failed to prove that the appellant had no lawful authority to sign the vehicle disposal... More
