[1] This matter was initially concluded by this Court in February 2015 as will be shown below. It is now 2025 and the matter is still to reach finality. The wheels of justice have run really slowly. This is regrettable.
[2] Mr Steven Office (Mr Office), the applicant, was employed by the respondent as a truck driver with effect from January 2011. On 24th September 2012 he was dismissed from respondent’s employ following disciplinary proceedings. He approached this Court on review. More
1.The applicant filed a composite chamber application being for condonation of late noting of appeal and leave to prosecute the envisaged appeal in person. After hearing the parties on 25 July 2025, I dismissed both applications for lack of merit and gave reasons in an ex tempore judgment. He immediately requested for written reasons for my decision and they are the subject of this judgment. More
The applicant is Stewart Phillip Cranswick a minority shareholder in the first respondent. The first respondent is Meikles limited a publicly listed company incorporated in terms of the laws of Zimbabwe. The second respondent is Meikles Consolidated Holdings (Private) Limited, a corporate registered in terms of the laws of Zimbabwe and the largest shareholder (holding 48,38% of the issued share capital) in the first respondent. The third respondent is John Ralph Thomas Moxon, a director in the second respondent and a chairman of the first respondent. The fourth respondent is the Zimbabwe Stock Exchange, a corporation set up in terms... More
This is a ruling on a point of law raised in a parent dispute whose fuller facts I set out under judgment number HH 93-24. In essence, applicant approached the court on motion seeking an order declaring two agreements of sale of land between itself and first respondent invalid. It also prayed for the refund of purchase price in the sum of US$220,000. This is the extant dispute between the parties More
The respondents were employed in various capacities, occupations, and grades by the appellant. They lodged a dispute for conciliation of alleged underpayment of wages, and non-payment of cash-in-lieu of leave, transport, and housing allowances. The matter was heard in terms of section 93 of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01] by Mrs. F. Mutambirwa who later referred it to arbitration after the parties failed to reach a consensus. The matter was referred in terms of section 93(5) (c) of the Labour Act. Arbitration had to determine whether or not the respondents were underpaid in wages, to determine the issue of non-payment... More
The applicants approached this court seeking the review of the first respondent’s decision to allocate a piece of communal land in Wada Nhira Village, Chief Neshangwe, Chikomba District of Mashonaland East Province to the third respondent. The application was made in terms of s 4(1) of the Administrative Justice Act [Chapter 10:28] (the AJA). More
Applicant applied to this Court for the reinstatement of its abandoned appeal referenced LCH 420/25. The application was made in terms of Rule 36 of the Labour Court Rules, 2017.
At the onset of oral argument, respondent raised 2 (two) points in limine which shall be addressed ad seriatim. More
