The first respondent sought to recruit a principal at its college. The first respondent flighted an advertisement to that effect. The second respondent was interested in the post and he was one of those who responded to the advertisement. The second respondent was shortlisted and he went through the selection process. He was eventually offered the position and he accepted to work as a principal with the respondent’s college More
This is an appeal against the whole judgment of the Labour Court (the ‘court a quo’) dated 6 May 2022, judgment number LC/H/108/22 in which it dismissed the appellants’ application seeking an order that the Works Council Meeting and Resolution of 15 September 2010 related to the appellants who were on fixed term contracts. More
This is an application for the rescission of a judgment granted in favour of the applicant, Joseph Mavhiza, which ordered him to set down his 2005 matter within 30 days. The applicant contends that he was unaware of the judgment until three months after it was issued, by which time the 30-day period had already lapsed. A further three months passed before the applicant was able to gather the necessary financial resources to engage legal representation and file the present application for rescission. The applicant is now six months out of time, seeking the court’s indulgence to rescind the judgment... More
The 1st appellant is an Agronomist in the Hurungwe District of Mashonaland West. The 2nd appellant is farmer in Karoi. They were jointly charged with fraud in contravention of s136 of the Criminal Law [codification and Reform] Act (Chapter 9:23). The offence relates to fraud in respect of agricultural inputs supplied by the Government. More
The applicant holds a Master’s Degree in Finance. He was last employed as the Group Financial Officer of a mining company. He was also a board member of the company. At the time of the hearing of this application, he was no longer so employed. In fact, he was out of employment. He lost his employment with the mining company in circumstances that led in part to this application More
This is an application for condonation for late filing an application for review. It is opposed. PRELIMINARY ISSUES
At the commencement of the hearing , preliminary issues were raised on behalf of the 1st respondent . These are that the draft application for review does not comply with rules of this Court ,Statutory Instrument 150/2017( the Rules); that the relief sought is incompetent and further that the review application is premature More
This is a judgment on preliminary issues which were raised on behalf of the 1st respondent where the main matter was an application for review. The following were the preliminary issues. That the application was defective in that it did not comply with the provisions of R20 of the Rules of this Court and Form LC5; that the grounds for review were not concise and precise; issue estoppel/res judicata in that the applicant was raising an appealable matter in an application for review where such matter had been competently dealt with in terms of a code of conduct. The respondent... More
