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
This is an application for backpay. This hearing is arising from a Supreme Court decision that referred the matter back for determination on the ground that the court as an equity court should not apply strict rules of evidence but should call expert evidence to assist in determining the backpay that should be paid. Previously the court had dismissed the claim as the applicant could not bring evidence to show how his backpay should be determined in view of the changes that the Zimbabwe currency had gone through during the relevant period. More
The allegations, as set out in the Request for Remand Form, are that they criminally abused their duties as public officers as follows. They were members of the City of Harare Tender Evaluation Committee. On a date not material to this judgment, sitting as members of such Committee, they unprocedurally awarded a tender to refurbish street lights in Harare to a company called Juluka Enndo Joint Venture in breach of procurement provisions which required the procurement to be done through a competitive bidding process. Further, they disregarded their earlier decision at a previous sitting of the same City of Harare... More
