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
This is an urgent chamber application for a provisional order interdicting the first respondent from performing his duties as Corporate Rescue Manager for the third respondent and for him not to interfere with the business operations of the third respondent. While the interim interdict herein is being sought pending the return date, the confirmation of the provisional order is being sought pending determination of an application instituted by the applicant under case no. HCH 587/24. In HCH587/24 the applicant herein is seeking the setting aside of the first respondent’s appointment and his removal as Corporate Rescue Manager of the third... More
On 21 May 2021, the first respondent filed an application for a declaration in this court. This application was served on applicant’s legal practitioners on the same day. The legal practitioners failed to reach the applicants due to network problems. Applicants who were not aware of this development did not make any personal efforts to communicate with their legal practitioners as they believed there was no urgency to do so since there were no outstanding matters after the first respondent had withdrawn a matter she had filed against applicants under HC 6404/20. More
This is an appeal against the whole judgment of the Labour Court (“the court a quo”), dated 10 June 2022. The judgment was passed in respect of two consolidated appeals that were filed before it. In that judgment the court a quo upheld the respondent’s appeal against dismissal from employment and ordered his reinstatement or alternatively, the payment of damages in the event that reinstatement was no longer possible. More
