Appellant appealed to this Court against a determination made by the Designated Agent of the NEC for the Funeral Industry. The appeal was made in terms of section 92D of the Labour Act Chapter 28:01 hereafter called the Act. Respondent opposed the appeal. More
The parties have had battles in the Magistrates Court and herein at the High Court. In this case the applicant applies for the matter filed by the respondents and not thereafter prosecuted to finality dismissed due to want of prosecution. The respondent opposes the request. Both parties claim for costs on client and attorney scale. More
On 11th December 2023 at Harare, Designated Agent A Chimedza issued a determination. He ordered appellant to reinstate respondent or pay him damages in lieu of reinstatement. Appellant then appealed the determination to this Court. The appeal was made in terms of Section 92D of the Labour Act Chapter 28:01(hereafter called the Act). Respondent opposed the appeal. More
Applicant settled an invoice for the first term 2024 tuition fees for his minor child at Goldridge Primary School in full at the prevailing Reserve Bank inter Bank rate on the date of payment. The 1st to 4th respondents have opposed the application on the basis that the application is fatally defective and further that tuition fees for the minor child have not been settled in full based on an alleged contract entered into between 1st and 2nd respondents and as such, application must fail. More
Applicant applied to this Court for the review of the termination of his employment contract by Respondents. The application was made in terms of Section 89 (1) 1 d of the Labour More
The application was brought before this court based on the following grounds:
“That the ruling made by the first Respondent is grossly unreasonable and is as outrageous as it defies all logic that no reasonable magistrates’ court applying its mind to the case would have arrived at such a decision.
That the first Respondent is un-procedurally (sic) and in a grossly irregular manner seeking to facilitate the second Respondent to bolster its otherwise very weak case through the defence’s evidence. The first Respondent did not show in her ruling that she actually exercised caution in treating evidence of the complainant... More
ZISENGWE J: Before me is rather intriguing set of facts, requiring the court in the main to decipher from the evidence what happened or did not happen decades ago, around 1941, to be precise. It is a dispute over a piece of land known as Farm 210 Mshagashe, Masvingo (the More
