Court Judgements




Browse Judgements by Year

BESOL MINING & MILLING SYNDICATE APPELLANT AND N. MUDIMU & 6 OTHERS RESPONDENTS (2016-11-04)
The appeal was referred tome for determination on the record in terms of Section 89 (2) (a) (i) of the Labour Act [Cap 28 : 01]. The matter was filed in July 2014 but has been lying idle due to failure on Appellant’s part to settle sheriff’s costs for services of Notice of Set-down. On the basis of the directive by the Senior Judge dated 3rd October, 2016 that all idle matters ready for set down be referred for determination on the record the above matter was referred to me. I proceed to determine the matter. More

BETRAM BROTHERS APPELLANT VERSUS DAVISON CHIRORO RESPONDENT (2016-12-02)
This matter was set down as an appeal to be heard on 8 June 2016. On that date the court observed that there was no notice of response on file. It was agreed between the parties that the matter be postponed sine die to allow for the filing of the notice of response. On 28 June 2016 the response was filed but the matter did not progress any further thereafter. The impression created by the lack of prosecution of the matter to its conclusion is that the matter was abandoned. That has prompted this court to dispose of the matter... More

BETTY MUSARIRI APPELLANT AND ZIM MOTOR DISTRIBUTIONS RESPONDENT (2016-04-08)
This is an appeal against the decision of the arbitrator where he ruled that appellant had resigned from her employment with respondent hence was not entitled to payment of notice pay or retrenchment package. The background to the matter is that appellant who was in the respondent’s employ wrote on 4 April 2014 to respondent resigning from her job. She however wrote another letter on 7 April 2014 cancelling her resignation. The respondent accepted her resignation and paid her what was due to her. She was irked by the fact that respondent did not consider the withdrawal of the first... More

BHEKIWE MHLANGA VERSUS ZIMPOST (PVT) LTD & ANOR (2016-05-13)
At the hearing of this matter, the applicant applied for a postponement. The reasons for applying for postponement is that they want time to file their heads of arguments which they failed to file in terms of the rules. The provisions of law are very clear. The respondent ought to have filed their heads in terms of Rule 15. More

BIGINI MUDZAMIRI APPLICANT AND CLARSON & COMPANY RESPONDENT (2016-04-22)
This is an application for condonation of late filing and extension of time within which to file an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against a judgment of this court handed down on 18 September 2015. In terms of Rule 36 of S.I. 59/06, an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court is to be made within 30 days from the date of the decision sought to be appealed against. Applicant avers that he only became aware of the judgment on 15 December 2015. The present application was filed on 17 December 2015. More

BILTRANS SERVICES (PVT) LIMITED V (1) THE MINISTER OF PUBLIC SERVICE, LABOUR AND SOCIAL WELFARE (2) DICK TOGARASI MUTADZIKI (3) DAVID CHISHIRI (4) KUDAKWASHE KAVARE (5) DONALDSON MAFUNDIRWA (6) KERDIMO CHIPADZE (7) THE SHERIFF OF ZIMBABWE (2016-05-18)
At the end of hearing argument for both parties the court dismissed the application with no order as to costs. It was indicated at the time that reasons for the decision would follow in due course. More

BIRIIRI PRIMARY SCHOOL SDC VS SARAH DONONO AND EVER MUKWENU 2ND RESPONDENT AND SUSAN UTETE (2016-07-08)
This appeal was set down in terms of Rule 19 (3)(a) of the Labour Court Rules, 2006. The appellant, being represented by a legal practitioner had not filed its heads of argument in terms of Rule 19 (1)(a) of the Rules. More


Midlands State University Library