“In Toyota Zimbabwe v Posi 2008 (1) ZLR 173 (S) at 179F the Court held that the Labour Act [Cap. 28:08] contains no provision which either expressly or by necessary implication alter purports to the common law principle that an … Read the rest...
Category: 2016 Case Law Review
ZB Bank v Maria Masunda SC 48 – 16
“It is clear that the filing of the medical aid claims was an integral part of the respondent’s duties as an employee of the appellant. Where an employee fails to further the interests of the employer by omitting or refusing … Read the rest...
NEC – Catering Industry v Richard Kundeya & Others SC 35-2016[1]
“Whether or not the mitigating factors outweighed aggravating circumstances was therefore an irrelevant consideration, unless the manner in which that decision was arrived at was shown to be unreasonable. Once the employer had proven that the respondents had committed a … Read the rest...
Eunice Madondo v Conquip Zimbabwe (Private) Limited SC (25 – 16)
“I have no doubt in my mind that in addition to being a pension claim form directed to the pension company concerned, the same document carried a clear and unequivocal message or notice directed to the respondent, that the appellant … Read the rest...
National Engineering Workers Union v Dube (SC 1 – 2016)
“Firstly, there are two definitions of ‘disciplinary committee’ in the definitions section of the Code. There is one that I will refer to as a “stand alone” definition, and the other that is subsumed under the definition of ‘disciplinary authority.’ … Read the rest...
ZIMPLATS v Ronald Godide (SC 2 – 2016)
“I agree with the submissions by Mr Mpofu that the right to dismiss is available at common law and that such right is entrenched. The employer at its election may decide to impose a lesser penalty than dismissal. Such is … Read the rest...
CIMAS v Tapiwa Nyandoro (SC 6 – 2016)
“The circumstances of the case show that the appellant did not act unfairly in not serving the respondent with a notice of removal of the suspension. The respondent behaved in a manner that showed that he no longer regarded himself … Read the rest...
Browne v Tanganda Tea Company (SC 22-16)
“In terms of ss 16 (1) and (3) of the Prescription Act [Chapter 8:11] prescription shall commence to run as soon as a debt is due. Moreover, a debt shall not be deemed to be due until the creditor becomes … Read the rest...