This is an application for review of the decision of Second Respondent. The brief facts are that Applicants were employed by David Whitehead Textiles Limited. Between 2009 and 2015, decisions were made to retrench some of the employees. Issues arose as to what amounts were due to the employees. It is not necessary to recount what transpired later save to state that Applicants’ employer was at one time placed under Judicial Management. Applicants’ matter has been ‘going the rounds’ between themselves and the NEC. The last decision from the NEC is dated 24 January 2025. The Applicants had placed the... More
On the 26th March 2024 the Supreme Court issued an order referenced SC 68/24 wherein it inter alia directed this Court to
“… to give its determination on the second preliminary point raised before it.”
On the 16th August 2024 this Court directed 2nd Respondent to file/uphold documents in terms of which IG, Dumba was appointed as its Acting Managing Director. The documents have not been filed to date. The aforesaid second preliminary point was to the effect that Dumba was appointed as Acting Managing Director of 2nd Respondent in violation of the Public Entities Corporate Governance Act Chapter 10:31... More
This is an opposed chamber application for the registration of a deed of settlement. For purposes of this judgement, and in order to avoid confusion, I will refer to the parties, were the context permits by their names i.e. the applicant as “Nyabadza” and the respondent as “the company.” More
This is an application for a mandatory interdict. Applicant seeks an order in the following terms:
1. The application for compelling Order be and is hereby granted.
2.The Respondents be and are hereby ordered to release the Deawoo Excavator at Number 32 Courtney, Ballantyne Park, Borrowdale.
3. The Respondents are prohibited from denying Applicant access to Courtney, Ballantyne Park, Borrowdale Number 32 for purposes of collection of the Deawoo Excavator.
4. The Respondents to pay costs on higher scale. More
[1] What is in a name? Is it true that that which we call a rose, by any other name would smell just as sweet? Not quite, if you consider the circumstances of this case. Apparently, there is everything in a name.
[2] On 12 March 2025, the first respondent obtained an order from this court, under case number HCH685/25, placing a company called Sinosteel Zimasco (Private) Limited (‘Sinosteel Zimasco’) under corporate rescue proceedings. The terms of the order were that: More
The employer and the employees in this case approached the Labour Court on appeal and on cross appeal in respect of an arbitral decision which had ruled that they appear before the retrenchment board so that the board could assist them to arrive at a mutually agreeable and mutually beneficial package. More
he first respondent, is a statutory institution constituted in terms of the Manpower Planning and Development Act [Chapter 28:02], which contracted the appellant in November 2000 to construct a nine-storey building in Harare and subsequently took occupation of the completed building as its headquarters. It has in fact litigated in that name, almost at an industrial scale in the courts, but suddenly came across an idea, namely that it does not have legal personality to contract or to sue and be sued in its own right. Never mind that the discovery of its legal incapacity did not stop it litigating... More
