Court Judgements
Browse Judgements by Year
The Respondents were employed by the University of Zimbabwe as full time lectures in the University’s Department of Rural and Urban Planning.
They were employed in terms of the University of Zimbabwe Act and in terms of that Act,they were employed for a probationary period of three years after which they could be granted tenure that is if they metcertain outlined requirements. More
The applicant in this case has not been diligent in its prosecution of this matter. More
The present application was set down for hearing on 15 November 2013. On the mentioned date, both parties appeared and, by consent, sought a postponement of the hearing to 2.30 pm on Wednesday 20 November 2013. The postponement aimed at affording the parties an opportunity to discuss the case amongst, and between, themselves with a view to arriving at a settlement. The postponement was premised on the following two conditions which were that: More
This is an appeal against the findings of the Appeals Committee which confirmed Appellant’s conviction and dismissal on the following charges;
(1) willful and serious breach of established, documented and published company rules procedures and regulations and standing instructions including till procedures, safety rules security measures, customer care rules and motor vehicle policies amongst others; and
(2) Gross incompetency or inefficiency in the performance of work. More
Appellant appealed to this Court against his dismissal from employment by Respondent. His Heads Of Argument summarised the case as follows;
“1. It is respectfully submitted that Respondent errored (sic) in dismissing Appellant on allegations of incompetence because (to) the job was not done by three surveyors – namely H Chitonje, A Pazvakavambwa and M Mapfumo.
Respondent did not dispute that according to the record of minutes of hearing.
2. We further submit that according to minutes, of (which) it is alleged that Appellant has for a long time been counselled on his shoddy work performance but there is no... More
As one of his grounds of appeal, Appellant raised the issue of the use of incorrect Code of Conduct. The ground reads:-
“a. We submitted to the hearing committee that we have grave reservations about their employ of the Interfresh Code of Conduct in bringing charges of misconduct against the Appellant.
Our reasoning was based on the mere fact that Section 3 of the Interfresh Code of Conduct provides the following.
The Code of Conduct is applicable to all employees of Interfresh Limited … Managerial up to Senior Management (B1) and none managerial. Employees in grades A4 up to A1... More
This is an appeal against the arbitral award of Honourable M Dangwa which was handed down on the 30th day of April 2012. More
