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 appeal is against the judgment of the Magistrates Court sitting at Victoria Falls, handed down on 16 May 2024, dismissing an interpleader claim by the appellant. We engaged counsel at the beginning of the appeal hearing regarding what appeared to us to have been a splitting of the appeal. That engagement was because a few days previously, we had dealt with another appeal arising from the same proceedings as this appeal did, albeit by a different appellant. We ultimately decided not to go back to that issue. 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
Compliance with court orders by some government officials acting in their official capacity is often problematic. This is despite the constitutional provision that obligates all citizens and state entities to observe the rule of law. This case is a clear example of reluctance to comply with a court order. This application is premised on the allegations that the first respondent defied an extant order of this court necessitating filing of the application for contempt of court in terms of r79 (1) of the High Court Rules, 2021. More
