Court Judgements
This is an application for the setting aside of an arbitral award in terms of Article 34 of the Model Law (Schedule to the Arbitration Act [Chapter 7.15] which provides in Sub-Article 2 as follows:
“Any arbitral award may be set aside by the High Court only if-
(a) …..
(b) the High court finds, that –
(i) the subject-matter of the dispute is not capable of settlement by arbitration under the law of Zimbabwe, or
(ii) the award is in conflict with the public policy of Zimbabwe.” More
It is quite clear from the facts presented before me that the leadership of the 1st applicant, the Zimbabwe Sugar Milling Workers Union (the Union) is hotly contested. There are two factions claiming to be the legitimate Executive Committee members of the Union. These two factions have been for sometime now engaged in bruising legal battles apparently taking no prisoners. More
The respondent in casu argued that he was on a contract with no limit of time and he had been unfairly dismissed with no notice given before the termination of his contract of employment. More
In this application the following relief is sought;-
“It is ordered that:-
1. The award of quantification of damages made by the second respondent on 28 October 2011 be and is hereby set aside.
2. The first respondent pay the costs of suit.” More
Section 3 of the Class Actions Act [Cap 8:17] provides as follows:-
“Application for leave to institute class action
(1) Subject to this section, the High Court may on application grant leave for the institution of a class action on behalf of any class of persons.
(2) An application for the institution of a class action –
(a) may be made by any person, whether or not he is a member of the class of persons concerned; and
(b) shall be made in the form and manner prescribed in rules of court. More
This is an application for an order dismissing the application in Case No. HC 11735/15 for want of prosecution. More
This is an appeal against an arbitral award.
The respondent was employed by the appellant as its human resources manager from 1 July 2012. The contract was to run to the 30th of June 2015. On the 28th of April 2014, the appellant was however charged in terms of the National Employment Code of Conduct SI 15 of 2006, of gross incompetency or inefficiency in the performance of her work being a charge under Section 4 (f). More
