This is an opposed application for an interdict wherein the applicant prays for an order couched in the following terms:-
“1. It is declared that the Tribute Agreement made and entered into by and between the 1st Respondent and the Applicant on the 17th of October 2024 and approved by the Mining Commissioner on the 1st of November 2024 as Standard Tribute Number UR Tribute 26 of 2024 is still valid and effectual and binding on the 1st Respondent and the Applicant. More
: This matter was placed before me as a chamber application for reinstatement of a matter deemed abandoned and dismissed. After hearing submissions from the parties’ legal practitioners, the court dismissed the application with costs on a legal practitioner and client scale. The following are the full reasons for my decision. More
1.This is an appeal against the judgment of the Labour Court (the court a quo) which upheld the arbitrator’s award reinstating the respondent to his employment without loss of salary and benefits. More
This is an appeal arising from a determination by an arbitrator. Both parties had preliminary issues to raise. This judgment is therefore on those preliminary issues. More
This is an application for the confirmation of an order of constitutional invalidity in terms of s 175(1) of the Constitution as read with rule 31 of the Constitutional Court Rules, 2016. The order of constitutional invalidity in question was made in the High Court (“the court a quo”) sitting at Harare and was handed down by Katiyo J on 18 July 2024, under case No. HCH 6718/20 and judgment No. HH 475-24. More
The appellant appeals against the whole judgment of the Labour Court (the court a quo), which was handed down on 27 February 2024. The court a quo dismissed his appeal against conviction and penalty, which was imposed by a disciplinary hearing officer [DHO] on 7 September 2023. The conviction and penalty were confirmed by an Appeal Hearing Officer on 25 October 2023 and then by an Appeal Officer on 6 November 2023. More
On the 24th, July, 2024 this court handed down an order in which the appeal was allowed with costs. The court indicated that the reasons would follow. The following are the reasons. The delay in the finalization of this matter is sincerely regretted.
The matter was placed before me as an appeal against a determination by the Respondent’s Appeals Officer which determination upheld an earlier determination of the Disciplinary Authority finding the Appellant guilty of gross incompetency and inefficiency in the performance of his work and subsequently dismissing him from employment. The determination by the Appeals Officer was handed down... More
