This is an application for the setting aside of a deed of settlement that was executed by the applicant and respondent in order to solve their labour dispute. The deed of settlement was duly signed by the two parties on 9 May 2016. The application is opposed by the respondent. More
The applicant was married to the late Duggan. They later divorced. During the subsistence of their marriage they acquired certain five pieces of property known as stands 1 to 5 of Wilmar Park, Banket “the properties” registered in their joint names. The properties are at the centre of this dispute. More
This is an unopposed application for leave to appeal to the Constitutional Court, made in terms of r 32 of the Constitutional Court Rules, 2016 (the Rules), against the decision of the Supreme Court (the court a quo) in Judgment No. SCB 03-24. The court a quo allowed, with costs, the first respondent’s appeal against the decision of the High Court in HB 102-23. It further set aside that judgment and substituted it with an order upholding the first respondent’s preliminary point on jurisdiction and declining jurisdiction to hear the matter. More
On the 27th August 2018 at Harare, Designated Agent (DA) M Manyika made a determination. He dismissed appellant’s (employee) claim of unfair termination of employment by respondent (employer). The employee then appealed the determination to this Court in terms of Section 92D of the Labour Act Chapter 28:01. More
This is a ruling on the preliminary issues raised by the parties. Applicant raised the point that the deponent to the Opposing Affidavit had not shown that he was duly authorised. In response Respondent’s legal practitioner stated that the Deponent was not initiating the application but merely acting as a witness. It was also averred that Applicant had not raised this issue in previous proceedings beginning with the Disciplinary proceedings which were initiated by the Deponent. More
The applicant appealed the decision which the court a quo entered against it in HB 66/19 (HC 2163/16). It filed its appeal under SC 288/19. The Supreme Court dismissed its appeal in its entirety. The dismissal was so notwithstanding the fact that the applicant raised, as one of its nine grounds of appeal, the issue of the scale of costs. Ground number 9 of its grounds of appeal is relevant in the mentioned regard. More
