The first applicant, Heal Zimbabwe is a universitas with capacity to sue and be sued. It is represented by its Executive Director, Rashid Mahiya duly authorised by a resolution to that effect made by its board of Directors.
The second applicant is Tonderai Chiwanza, an adult male of Chitungwiza. He described himself as a former councillor for Chitungwiza Municipal Council and a human rights activist with “an inherent interest” in protecting the constitution. More
On the 8th August 2024 Arbitrator NC Mutiba issued an arbitral award in terms of which she ordered applicant to pay respondents retrenchment packages amounting to US$ 28,532.15. Applicant then applied to this Court for the review of the award in terms of Section 89 of the (1) (d1) Labour Act Chapter 28:01 hereafter called the Act. More
At the onset of oral argument in this court, applicant raised 3 (three) points in limine which respondent opposed. The points will be addressed ad seriatim. More
This is an application for direct access in terms of s 167(5) of the Constitution, as read with Rule 21(2) of the Constitutional Court Rules, 2016. In essence, the application challenges the decision of the Supreme Court (the court a quo) on the grounds that it violated the applicant’s fundamental rights under ss 56(1), 69(1) and 70(1) of the Constitution, which guarantee the right to equality and non-discrimination, the right to a fair trial, and the rights of an accused person. The applicant contends that the court a quo failed to properly adjudicate the appeal before it and to uphold... More
he appellant was employed by the respondent as a Finance Director in December 2007
as evidenced by his contract of employment filed of record. The applicant contends that he was
unlawfully dismissed from employment by the respondent after a disciplinary hearing effective
30 March 2020, as evidenced by the letter of dismissal filed of record. He contends that he
challenged the decision of the employer to dismiss him before this Court and in the Supreme
Court which ruled in his favour on the 7th of March 2023 and his dismissal was set aside. He
avers that it was ordered by... More
Applicant applied for leave to appeal this Court’s judgment to the Supreme Court. The application was made in terms of Section 92F of the Labour Act Chapter 28:01, hereafter called the Act, as read with Rule 43 of the Labour Court Rules, 2017. Respondent opposed the application. At the onset of argument applicant made an oral application for condonation. The application was based on submissions by applicant’s attorney to the effect that; More
Appellant was employed by the Respondent at its Mutawatawa District Hospital. Allegations of misconduct were levelled against him and he was brought before a Disciplinary Committee. He was found guilty on two charges and Not Guilty on the other two. One of the charges was withdrawn during the course of the hearing. Appellant is dissatisfied with this outcome and has approached this Court for relief. Appellant’s grounds of appeal . More
