On the 31st August 2023 at Harare, 1st respondent in her capacity as a Designated Agent (DA), issued a determination. She dismissed applicant’s (employee) claim of unlawful termination of employment by 2nd respondent (employer). Appellant then applied for the review of the determination by this Court in terms of section 89(1)(d) & 92 EE of the Labour Act Chapter 28:01 (the Act). Respondent opposed the application. More
On 27 August 2024 the court dismissed the respondent’s application for condonation and the removal of bar and expunged the respondent’s opposing papers and treated the application as unopposed. The court further granted the application for registration of the judgment of the labour officer, F. V. Marovanyika dated 8 September 2022 for execution purposes and ordered the respondent to pay the applicant the sum of US$935 511.57 payable in local currency at the prevailing rate and costs of this application on a legal practitioner and client scale. The order was granted following an amendment of the draft order at the... More
There is a banker and client contractual relationship between the parties. The plaintiff (Ramatex) sued the defendant (ACL) for general damages in the sum of US$998 960.00. The circumstances giving rise to the claim are partly common cause. There are 3 issues identified and agreed to by the parties for determination at this trial. These are;
(a) Whether or not ACL submitted the application for the registration of Ramatex’s blocked funds on or before the 30 April 2019 deadline;
(b) Whether the registration of the legacy debt failed as a result of the late submission of the application of the... More
The application placed before me is for quantification of backpays and benefits following the Applicant’s reinstatement into his original position. The application is filed in terms of section 89 of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01] as read with rule 14 of the Labour Court rules, 2017. More
The applicant and the respondent are duly incorporated companies, the applicant according to the laws of Lebanon, and the respondent according to the laws of Zimbabwe. The applicant avers that the respondent is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Mineral Marketing Corporation of Zimbabwe (MMCZ) a body corporate created by a statute of the same name, [Chapter 21:04]. The respondent averred on the contrary that it is wholly owned by the Ministry of Mines and not MMCZ. Nothing turns on the ownership of the respondent because of the nature of the relief sought. Suffice that there is no dispute regarding... More
This is an action for divorce and ancillary relief. The parties are married in terms of the marriage Act, [Chapter 5:11] (Now the Marriage, Act [Chapter 5:17], which marriage was solemnised on 19 January 2007. Not only are the parties resigned to the fact that their marriage has irretrievably broken down and therefore should be dissolved, but they also agree on the distribution of the bulk of their assets as between them. They however remain poles apart on two outstanding issues namely:
a) The custody of their child Kudzaishe Magande (born on 9 August 2010) who, of their three children,... More
The applicant herein brought an application seeking a vindicatory order against the respondents for restoration of possession of a piece of land situate in the District of Salisbury called Lot 211 Block C of Hatfield Estate measuring 3,6002 hectares which is also known as No. 32 Winston Road South, Hatcliffe, Harare (“the property”). The applicant is the registered owner of the property under Deed of Transfer No.2721/2010. More
