Back to top
Zalari has raised $2 million USD in a founding round led by Nyamaropa Technologies
Harare High Court

ZESA HOLDINGS (PVT) LTD v ENERGY SECTOR WORKERS’ UNION

HH 28/18

Case Details

Court
Harare High Court
Date
23 January 2018
Citation
HH 28/18
Neutral Citation
[2018] ZWHH 28
Outcome
unknown
Case Type
Urgent Application

Bench

Presiding
ZHOU J
Full Bench
ZHOU J
Areas of Law
Labour LawConstitutional Law
Keywords
interim interdictshow cause orderessential servicedemonstrationcollective job action
Tags
urgent applicationinterdictcollective job actionessential service
legislation
Statutes Cited
  • Labour Act
  • Labour Act
  • Labour Act
  • Constitution of Zimbabwe
  • Constitution of Zimbabwe
ai analysis
Case Summary

Key Issues

  • {"issue_text":"Whether the applicant has established a clear right to interdict the respondent from proceeding with the demonstration","issue_type":"law","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"The nature of the demonstration as a collective job action and the essential service status of employees"}
  • {"issue_text":"Whether the demonstration constitutes an unlawful collective job action","issue_type":"law","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"The employees are in an essential service and procedures under section 104(2) were not followed"}
  • {"issue_text":"Whether constitutional rights under section 59 protect the demonstration","issue_type":"constitutional","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"The respondent's argument that section 59 applies"}
  • {"issue_text":"Whether the balance of convenience favors granting interim relief","issue_type":"law","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"The pending show cause order proceedings"}
This summary was generated by AI. Use Zalari to read the full judgment.
background
Facts of the Case

Background

The applicant sought an urgent interdict to stop the respondent union from proceeding with a demonstration by its employees, arguing that the employees are in an essential service and the demonstration constitutes an unlawful collective job action. The respondent intended to demonstrate to demand implementation of a 2012 collective bargaining agreement.
Read the full judgment, get AI analysis, and find related cases
Open in Zalari →