On 3rd March 2023 at Bindura, Labour Officer L. Denhere issued a ruling which reads,
“Having considered the foregoing analysis I dismiss the claims for underpayment and non-payment of termination benefits. The respondent is ordered to pay the claimant cash in lieu of for 90 days accrued and give him a reference letter.”
Appellant (employee) then appealed the ruling in terms of section 92D of the Labour Act Chapter 28:01 hereafter called the Act. Respondent (employer) opposed the appeal. More
This matter was set down so that a review application filed on behalf of the applicant could be heard. At the commencement of the hearing the legal practitioner on behalf of the respondent stood up to address the Court. The nature of the application was not immediately articulated in order for the Court to appreciate it. More
The background to the matter as given by the applicants’ representative stems from an agreement the applicants had with the 1st respondent wherein funds were to be pooled together for a co-operative venture. The co-operative was to purchase land for the benefit of all the applicants. More
This is an appeal against the order of the Magistrates Court sitting at the Bulawayo Magistrates Court (“court a quo”). The appellant, Nomathemba Banda, secured a loan from the respondent, FMC Finance (Private) Limited. The respondent contended that the appellant defaulted in her loan repayments and sued for the recovery of the balance outstanding. The court a quo granted summary judgment in favour of the respondent. For ease of reference and where the context allows the parties shall be referred to as in the court a quo i.e., the respondent as the plaintiff and the appellant as the defendant. More
These two matters were consolidated following an application made by defendant in HC 1141/09 and plaintiff in HC 2256/19. For ease of reference I will refer to the plaintiff in HC 1141/09 as “the Trust” and defendant in HC 1141/09 who is plaintiff in HC 2256/19 as “Mercy.” More
This is an application for condonation for late noting of appeal. It is opposed.
I must express from the outset, my concern with the perception some litigants may have of the rules of the Labour Court Statutory Instrument 150/2017(the Rules) and how they are applied. I say this in view of the present matter and how it was presented. It is trite that this Court exercises equitable jurisdiction in dealing with matters which are brought before it.
However, this is always done within the confines of both the rules of the Court and the Labour Act Chapter 28:01 ( the... More
This is an appeal against the decision by a designated agent reinstating the respondent (the employee) into his former position with no loss of salary and benefits. The designated agent also ordered the payment of back pay for two different periods and the appellant was not challenging the backpay which relates to the period the respondent was unlawfully dismissed. More
