At the commencement of the proceedings, the Court enquired from Applicant’s legal practitioners whether the matter was properly before the Court seeing that that it purported to be a ‘Composite Application’ for condonation and review. The Court also enquired whether the Rules provided for such a procedure.
In response, Mr. Masuku stated that he was relying on precedent when he filed the documents in question. He further stated that he was relying on Read v Gardener 2019 (3) ZLR 575 (S) and Murambiwa v SEEDCO LCH/361/23. He stated that he did not have anything further to say in connection with... More
At the commencement of the proceedings, the Court enquired from Applicant’s legal practitioners whether the matter was properly before the Court seeing that that it purported to be a ‘Composite Application’ for condonation and review. The Court also enquired whether the Rules provided for such a procedure. More
1. This is an appeal against the whole judgment of the High Court (the court a quo) dated 29 February, 2024 dismissing the appellant’s urgent court application in which it sought declaratory and consequential relief. More
Applicants applied to this Court for joinder in terms of Rule 33(2) of the Labour Court Rules, 2017. At that onset of oral argument respondent raised a point in limine which applicants opposed. More
Applicants applied to this Court for their joinder to the appeal pending under reference LCH 74/23. The application was made in terms of Rule 33(2) of the Labour Court Rules, 2017. Respondent opposed the application. More
The application is for quantification of damages in lieu of reinstatement. The application is filed pursuant to a court order granted by this court on 10th November, 2023 with a corrigendum issued on the 4 April 2024. The application is opposed by the 2nd Respondent More
[1]This is an appeal against the whole judgment of the High Court sitting at Bulawayo (“the court a quo”) handed down as judgment number HB 188/24 wherein, after striking out all but one of the appellant’s several grounds of appeal against both conviction and sentence on the basis that they were invalid, it allowed the appeal in part, setting aside the sentence of 15 years imposed against the appellant and substituted it with one of an effective 12-years imprisonment. More
