This is an application for review in terms of ss 92EE (1) of the Labour Act , Chapter 28:01 ARW rule 20(1) of the Labour Court Rules 2017(the Rules), against the proceedings of the 1st Respondent (Designated officer) that was conducted on 13 November and concluded on the 24 November 2023. More
This is a divorce action wherein what is to be determined in the trial is couched as follows in the joint pretrial conference minute: -
“The constitution and distribution of matrimonial assets.” More
Applicant (employer) applied to this Court for condonation of a late review in terms of Rule 22 of the Labour Court Rules, 2017. 1st Respondent (employee) opposed the application. Applicant intends to file for review of proceedings and ruling before and by 2nd Respondent (Labour Officer) on 7th August 2023. More
The reason behind these unusual circumstances was caused by a major dispute between applicant and its second set of legal practitioners. Basing on the withdrawals and tendering of wasted costs by applicant second to fifth respondents raised a bill of costs for taxation. There were a number of postponements to the hearing for the taxation of the bill of costs leading to the hearing on 25 June 2024. At the taxation, applicant was legally represented. It was clarified that the bill of costs was predicated upon the tendered wasted costs when heads of argument and notice of opposition were withdrawn... More
This is an application for condonation for the late filing of an application for review. Brief background
The applicant was employed as a security guard by the respondent. His job responsibilities
included the securing of company premises and all of the respondent’s property. Allegations of theft were raised by the respondent against the applicant. It was alleged that the applicant, acting in connivance with one Kwainonaya (a fellow employee) stole gold ore from the respondent’s property. He pleaded not guilty but was found guilty and dismissed. More
The applicant seeks a final interdict barring the five respondents from interfering with its mining operations on pieces of land situate in on communal lands in the Zaka District of Masvingo Province. Through the affidavit deposed to by its director, Boysen Mutembwa, it alleges that the five respondents are conducting illegal mining activities on some of its registered mining blocks, a claim which the respondents deny. It further avers that it is the registered holder of mining claims known as Bvuma Mining project which it obtained sometime in 2017 and 2018. It has since affected developments thereon pursuant to its... More
This matter was heard on 5 November 2024. I issued an order in terms of which I upheld the respondent’s point in limine that the applicant’s claim had prescribed and consequently, dismissed this application with costs. I gave brief reasons for my decision then. On 7 November 2024, the applicant’s legal practitioners requested the written reasons thereof. These are they. More
