This is an application for confirmation of two draft rulings in terms of section 93 (5a) of the Labour Act, (Chapter 28:01). Applicant was represented by Mr. Gundumura.
Mr. Gundumura, in motivating the confirmation of the application, stated that he abided by the documents filed of record and urged the Court to confirm the draft rulings. More
This is an appeal and cross appeal against the decision of the designated agent who ruled that appellant had been irregularly dismissed and ordered that he be reinstated without loss of salary and benefits or that he be paid damages for the loss of his job as a watchman with the respondent employer. More
This urgent court application was filed in terms of r 59(6) of the High Court Rules, 2021. The applicant seeks spoliatory relief and other interdicts pending the resolution of a shareholder dispute that is currently before arbitration tribunal. That dispute is concerned with a joint venture arrangement between the applicant and the first respondent that involves the affairs of the second respondent. The second, third and fourth respondents were cited as interested parties. They did not oppose the application and were not represented at the hearing. More
Applicant applied to this Court for the review of his dismissal from employment by Respondent. The application was made in terms of Section 89(1) of the Labour Act Chapter 28:01 as read with Rule 20(1) of the Labour Court Rules, 2017. Respondent opposed the application. More
This is an appeal against the decision of the designated agent who found that appellant was guilty of habitual neglect of his duties and penalised him with dismissal.
Facts of the matter are that appellant was accused of habitual neglect of duty where it was said that he was in the habit of taking sick time off and upon expiration of the sick leave he would not come back to work thus prejudicing the operations of the respondent where the appellant’s duties involved team work with a colleague who would end up working alone in appellant’s absence to the detriment... More
In 2006, respondent registered a company called Secam Productions (Pvr) Ltd which specialized in video sales. The directors were the respondent, holding 70% of the shares, Nobuhle Mpofu with 20% shares and Sikhanyiso Dube with 10% shares. Respondent and 1st and 2nd applicants are former employees of a company called Zambezi Helicopter Company, a company providing helicopter rides in Victoria Falls. Respondent and 1st applicant entered into an agreement for mutual termination of employment with their employer, in which they were given an opportunity to run their own video business and were immediately to resign as employees of Zambezi Helicopter... More
The following are the grounds of appeal and I quote:
1. ‘The Tribunal a quo erred and misdirected itself on a point of law in failing to appreciate that the essential elements of the offence of embezzlement had not been proven. More
