The applicant, a retired accountant approached the court seeking the following relief against the respondents.
“IT IS ORDERED THAT
1. 1st Respondent, shall pay to the Applicant the sum of USD$72 232.87 plus interest at the same calculated at the rate of 5% per annum with effect from the 1st of November 2018, and alternatively
2. That the 1st Respondent shall pay the Applicant the sum of USD$72 232.87 or its equivalency in local currency calculated at the local exchange rate as defined by the Dutch auction system plus interest at the legal rate on the above amount calculated from... More
Applicant applied to this Court for rescission of judgment in term of Section 92C (1)(a) of the Labour Act Chapter 28:01 as read with Rule 40 of the Labour Court Rules, 2017. Respondent opposed the application. More
1. This is an appeal against the judgment of the employer in which the appellant was convicted of three acts of breaching section 4(a) of the Labour (National Employment Code of Conduct) Regulations, S.I. 15 of 2006. More
This application will be better understood against the background that follows. The applicant and the first respondent were involved in a dispute over a mining claim. In Case No: HCH 6627/23 (per MHURI J) this court sitting in Harare issued an order for the eviction of the applicant from a mining claim called Sandawana AV8 More
This is a court application for review of the decision made by the Provincial Magistrate Ms N Marufu, the fourth respondent, sitting at Magistrates Court (Civil) at Harare on 24 October 2023. In terms of that decision the court a quo dismissed the applicant, Shinedrive Auto Services (Pvt) Ltd.’s court application for amendment of summons. More
The applicant raises two grounds for review, that is that, firstly, the respondent’s Appeals Officer erred in upholding the decision by the Disciplinary Committee where the Disciplinary Committee had failed to address a preliminary point regarding its own jurisdiction to deal with the matter before considering the merits of the case before it; and secondly, that the decision of the Appeals Officer was grossly irregular in that it upheld the decision of the Disciplinary Committee where that Committee had failed to afford the applicant an opportunity to make an address in mitigation before a penalty was imposed. More
The factual background to this matter, briefly outlined, is that the applicant and the second respondent are registered holders of blocks of mining claims in the Mashonaland East Province. The applicant owns claims under the block Chifumbi 2 Mine (Registration No. 1688G). The second respondent owns claims under the block Averum 22 (Registration No. 37918). A dispute arose between the applicant and the second respondent when the latter started mining in an area the applicant claimed was within his registered claims. The dispute was adjudicated upon by the first respondent, resulting in a determination issued on 1 December 2022. In... More
