The relationship between applicant and respondent is one of employer/employee. Following labour disputes, applicant approached the labour court under case No. HCH 381/23 seeking inter alia an order setting aside the decision of the respondent’s disciplinary authority and reinstatement of his employment with full benefits. The matter was removed from the roll to enable applicant to furnish the necessary and relevant documents in terms of R 19(1)(b) and 20(1)(b) of the Labour Court Rules 2017. More
This matter pertains to two matters being case numbers HCH1754/24 and case number HC1978/24 which cases were consolidated under case number HC4083/24. The consolidation was proper as the two cases share common facts whence forth each litigant seeks relief upon. Apparently, the legal issues are so intertwined such that the resolution of one of them likely settles the other.
For clarity the following is the relief sought by each litigant More
1. This is an appeal against part of the judgment of the Labour Court (the court a quo) handed down on 13 March 2023 which upheld the respondent’s application for review of the decision of the appellant’s Disciplinary Tribunal (the Tribunal) dismissing her from employment and ordering her reinstated to her former position of employment without loss of salary and benefits. More
This is an opposed application for condonation and extension of time within which to apply for leave to appeal and for leave to appeal made in terms of s 92F (3) of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01] as read with r 43 (3) and 60 (2) of the Supreme Court Rules 2018. More
MANYANGADZE J: This is an application for a declaratur, in which the applicant seeks an order declaring that its indebtedness to the respondents has been fully extinguished. The application arises out of a Labour Court judgment, LC/MS/09/18, handed down on 7 June 2018, in terms of which the applicant was ordered to pay the respondents certain benefits accruing from their contract of employment with the applicant. More
The applicant approached this court seeking temporary relief for stay of execution of an order granted by this court per CHINAMORA J pending the confirmation or discharge of the provisional order that it seeks before me. On the return date, the applicant also seeks by way of substantive relief, that the execution of the CHINAMORA J order be suspended pending the determination of an application for leave for direct access that was made to the Constitutional Court. More
Up until recently the applicant was a member of the Zimbabwe Prisons and Correctional Services (ZPCS). He was discharged by the Commissioner General of Prisons and Correctional Services, (the second respondent) following disciplinary proceedings conducted under the Prisons (Staff) (Discipline) Regulations, 1984 (‘the regulations”). He now brings this application in terms of ss 26 & 27 of the High Court, [Chapter 7:06] for a review of that decision. He seeks to have it set aside on the basis that according to him the procedure leading to his discharge was marred by several procedural irregularities. More
