Cause of Action and Draft Orders re: Appearance to Defend iro Effect of Non-Appearance

The applicants filed an Urgent Chamber Application on 26 September 2019. The first to seventh respondents (Zimbabwe Sugar Milling Industry Workers Union, Godfrey Katerere, Brawl Chikandiwa, Tavonga Vandirai, Lucia Chirilele, Nokhutula Dube and Faster Gono) filed opposing papers on the date of the hearing.

The 8th to 14th respondents (Berrington Zvanyanya, Samule Jijinka, P.Chikami, Z. Manara, A. Sibanda, J. Gwanyanya and Admore Hwarare) did not file any papers and their position is that they do not oppose the application, if the terms thereof are broadened to encapsulate their interests.

Mr K. Shamuyarira, a trade unionist representing the 15th respondent (Zimbabwe Federation of Trade Unions) is opposed to the application. He also did not file opposing papers....,.

I am mindful of counsel for the 8th to 14th respondents submissions on the merits. It appears, however, that he was principally not opposed to the application.

He had concerns on broadening the relief sought.

Urgency re: Approach, the Principle of Equality of Treatment & Discretion of the Court to Hear Oral Arguments on Urgency

In a long line of cases, the issue of urgency has been defined and traversed. Among other cases, see: Kuvarega v Registrar General and Another 1988 (1) ZLR 188 (HC); Shandong Taishon Sunlight Investments Limited v Yunnan Linkun Investments Group Company Limited & Others HH06-16…,.; Triple C Pigs (Partnership and Colcom Foods Limited) v The Commissioner General of Zimbabwe Revenue Authority HH07-07…,.; Document Support Centre (Private) Limited v T.F. Mapuvire HH117-06…,.

Urgency re: Land Reform, Spoliation or Mandament van Spolie Proceedings and Property Disputes

The applicants filed an Urgent Chamber Application on 26 September 2019. The first to seventh respondents (Zimbabwe Sugar Milling Industry Workers Union, Godfrey Katerere, Brawl Chikandiwa, Tavonga Vandirai, Lucia Chirilele, Nokhutula Dube and Faster Gono) filed opposing papers on the date of the hearing.

The 8th to 14th respondents (Berrington Zvanyanya, Samule Jijinka, P.Chikami, Z. Manara, A. Sibanda, J. Gwanyanya and Admore Hwarare) did not file any papers and their position is that they do not oppose the application, if the terms thereof are broadened to encapsulate their interests.

Mr K. Shamuyarira, a trade unionist representing the 15th respondent (Zimbabwe Federation of Trade Unions) is opposed to the application. He also did not file opposing papers.

The relief sought was amended at the eleventh hour.

The first to seventh respondents (Zimbabwe Sugar Milling Industry Workers Union, Godfrey Katerere, Brawl Chikandiwa, Tavonga Vandirai, Lucia Chirilele, Nokhutula Dube and Faster Gono) opposing papers were predicated upon the original relief sought.

The relief that is now sought reads as follows;

“1. INTERIM RELIEF SOUGHT

1.1 It is ordered that pending the final resolution of this matter either in the court of first instance or an appeal;

(a) The applicants are to deposit the 'Trade Union Dues' for the Zimbabwe Sugar Milling Industry Workers Union into the Master of the High Court Trust Account until the final resolution of SC518/19.

2. FINAL TERMS OF THE PROVISIONAL ORDER

2.1 The interim order is confirmed.

2.2 The 1st to 14th respondents shall pay costs of suit on an Attorney and client scale.”

The background of the matter can be traced back to a matter adjudicated upon by MAFUSIRE J in HMA38-19 referred to as Zvanyanya and Others v ZISMIWU and Others.

This matter was heard on 23 May 2019 and 27 June 2019 and the date of written reasons is 28 August 2019.

In HMA38-19 the applicants therein, who are members of a faction of a trade union, sought to have three respondents (namely 2nd, 3rd and 4th respondents, Godfrey Katerere, Brawl Chikandiwa and Tavonga Vandirai)) to be disqualified from membership of the trade union, and, flowing therefrom, to be disqualified from holding positions in the trade unions National Executive Committee. The applicants in HMA38-19 also sought an order to hold elections to choose members of the National Executive Committee and to hold annual general meetings in terms of its Constitution.

MAFUSIRE J resolved the issues by way of an order which reads as follows;

“(i) The second, third, and fourth respondents ceased being members of the first respondent upon the termination of their contracts of employment with the seventh respondent.

(ii) By reason of paragraph (i) above the second, third, and fourth respondents are hereby disqualified from holding any positions in the first respondents national executive committee.

(iii) The first respondent shall hold elections to choose members of the national executive committee within sixty (60) days of the date of this order, or within such other time frame as may be agreed upon.

(iv) The first respondent shall hold an annual general meeting in terms of its Constitution by no later than the 31st December 2019.

(v) The costs of this application shall be borne by the first, second, third, and fourth respondents, jointly and severally.”

The first to sixth respondents (Zimbabwe Sugar Milling Industry Workers Union, Godfrey Katerere, Brawl Chikandiwa, Tavonga Vandirai, Lucia Chirilele and Nokhutula Dube) have since appealed against the whole, final and definitive judgment under HMA38-19 to the Supreme Court. The appeal appears under cover of SC518/19.

It would appear that specifically because of the order under HMA38-19, and the developments thereafter, the acrimony between the parties intensified.

It may be necessary to identify the parties at this stage.

The first and second applicants (Triangle Ltd and Hippo Valley Estates Ltd) are the employers.

The first respondent (Zimbabwe Sugar Milling Industry Workers Union) is a registered trade union in terms of the laws of Zimbabwe.

The second to seventh respondents (Godfrey Katerere, Brawl Chikandiwa, Tavonga Vandirai, Lucia Chirilele, Nokhutula Dube and Faster Gono) are members of a faction of the first respondent while the eigth to fourteenth respondents (Berrington Zvanyanya, Samule Jijinka, P.Chikami, Z. Manara, A. Sibanda, J. Gwanyanya and Admore Hwarare) are members of the second faction.

The two factions are involved in a fierce battle to control the first respondent.

The fifteenth respondent (Zimbabwe Federation of Trade Unions) is ostensibly the mother body of the first respondent (Zimbabwe Sugar Milling Industry Workers Union) while the fourteenth respondent (Admore Hwarare) is cited in her official capacity.

The employer is, by virtue of the law, enjoined to transmit union dues to the first respondent.

The situation has been complicated by the fights and disagreements between the two factions set on wrestling and winning control over the first respondent.

The applicant is of the view, that, in order to safeguard the union dues they should be transmitted to a trustworthy and secure institution, namely, the Master of the High Court. This is to prevent the funds being misused or to stop or prevent the various warring factions seeking to apportion a slice of the cake to themselves.

As is usual in such applications, points in limine were raised.

Some of the points in limine seem to have been abandoned while others were seemingly overtaken by events.

Points in limine raised by the first to seventh respondents were;

Firstly, that the matter is not urgent.

Counsel for the first to seventh respondents referred to principles on urgency and various case law. She pointed out, that, the applicant filed heads of argument on 30 September 2019 as well as an amended draft order. These two sets of documents were only served on her, as counsel for the first to seventh respondents, ten minutes before the scheduled time for the hearing of this application. No warning was given of the amended draft order.

Counsel for the first to seventh respondents avers, that, in HMA38-19 the applicants chose to abide by the decision of the Court. She sought to demonstrate, that, the various cases relied upon by the applicants are either misplaced, irrelevant, or misunderstood. She averred, that, the applicants should not have approached the court without notifying all the parties.

In a long line of cases, the issue of urgency has been defined and traversed. Among other cases, see: Kuvarega v Registrar General and Another 1988 (1) ZLR 188 (HC); Shandong Taishon Sunlight Investments Limited v Yunnan Linkun Investments Group Company Limited & Others HH06-16…,.; Triple C Pigs (Partnership and Colcom Foods Limited) v The Commissioner General of Zimbabwe Revenue Authority HH07-07…,.; Document Support Centre (Private) Limited v T.F. Mapuvire HH117-06…,.

Counsel for the applicants argued, that, the matter is indeed urgent. He strongly based his argument on the fact that the applicants are enjoined, at law, to disburse union dues to the trade union every month lest they face civil or criminal liabilities.

He further pointed out, that, there has been a lot of infighting between the two factions of the first respondent. To that end, the two factions are battling, through the employer, and either faction is demanding union dues from the applicants.

A lot more was traversed by counsel for the applicants which spoke more to the merits of the case.

I am, however, of the view that urgency has been proved.

There is clear acrimony between the alleged factions. Pursuant to the judgment in HMA38-19 the fighting for control of the first respondent intensified. The appeal launched against the decision did not help matters either. The legal obligation of the applicants, to disburse union dues to the first respondent, is common cause.

The need to clarify how the disbursement, and to whom it should be made, is clearly an urgent matter.

I am satisfied, that, when the need to act arose, the applicants did act expeditiously in the circumstances of this case.

Urgency re: Approach iro Time, Consequent and Remedial Alternative Considerations of Urgency

The applicants filed an Urgent Chamber Application on 26 September 2019. The first to seventh respondents (Zimbabwe Sugar Milling Industry Workers Union, Godfrey Katerere, Brawl Chikandiwa, Tavonga Vandirai, Lucia Chirilele, Nokhutula Dube and Faster Gono) filed opposing papers on the date of the hearing.

The 8th to 14th respondents (Berrington Zvanyanya, Samule Jijinka, P.Chikami, Z. Manara, A. Sibanda, J. Gwanyanya and Admore Hwarare) did not file any papers and their position is that they do not oppose the application, if the terms thereof are broadened to encapsulate their interests.

Mr K. Shamuyarira, a trade unionist representing the 15th respondent (Zimbabwe Federation of Trade Unions) is opposed to the application. He also did not file opposing papers.

The relief sought was amended at the eleventh hour.

The first to seventh respondents (Zimbabwe Sugar Milling Industry Workers Union, Godfrey Katerere, Brawl Chikandiwa, Tavonga Vandirai, Lucia Chirilele, Nokhutula Dube and Faster Gono) opposing papers were predicated upon the original relief sought.

The relief that is now sought reads as follows;

“1. INTERIM RELIEF SOUGHT

1.1 It is ordered that pending the final resolution of this matter either in the court of first instance or an appeal;

(a) The applicants are to deposit the 'Trade Union Dues' for the Zimbabwe Sugar Milling Industry Workers Union into the Master of the High Court Trust Account until the final resolution of SC518/19.

2. FINAL TERMS OF THE PROVISIONAL ORDER

2.1 The interim order is confirmed.

2.2 The 1st to 14th respondents shall pay costs of suit on an Attorney and client scale.”

The background of the matter can be traced back to a matter adjudicated upon by MAFUSIRE J in HMA38-19 referred to as Zvanyanya and Others v ZISMIWU and Others.

This matter was heard on 23 May 2019 and 27 June 2019 and the date of written reasons is 28 August 2019.

In HMA38-19 the applicants therein, who are members of a faction of a trade union, sought to have three respondents (namely 2nd, 3rd and 4th respondents, Godfrey Katerere, Brawl Chikandiwa and Tavonga Vandirai)) to be disqualified from membership of the trade union, and, flowing therefrom, to be disqualified from holding positions in the trade unions National Executive Committee. The applicants in HMA38-19 also sought an order to hold elections to choose members of the National Executive Committee and to hold annual general meetings in terms of its Constitution.

MAFUSIRE J resolved the issues by way of an order which reads as follows;

“(i) The second, third, and fourth respondents ceased being members of the first respondent upon the termination of their contracts of employment with the seventh respondent.

(ii) By reason of paragraph (i) above the second, third, and fourth respondents are hereby disqualified from holding any positions in the first respondents national executive committee.

(iii) The first respondent shall hold elections to choose members of the national executive committee within sixty (60) days of the date of this order, or within such other time frame as may be agreed upon.

(iv) The first respondent shall hold an annual general meeting in terms of its Constitution by no later than the 31st December 2019.

(v) The costs of this application shall be borne by the first, second, third, and fourth respondents, jointly and severally.”

The first to sixth respondents (Zimbabwe Sugar Milling Industry Workers Union, Godfrey Katerere, Brawl Chikandiwa, Tavonga Vandirai, Lucia Chirilele and Nokhutula Dube) have since appealed against the whole, final and definitive judgment under HMA38-19 to the Supreme Court. The appeal appears under cover of SC518/19.

It would appear that specifically because of the order under HMA38-19, and the developments thereafter, the acrimony between the parties intensified.

It may be necessary to identify the parties at this stage.

The first and second applicants (Triangle Ltd and Hippo Valley Estates Ltd) are the employers.

The first respondent (Zimbabwe Sugar Milling Industry Workers Union) is a registered trade union in terms of the laws of Zimbabwe.

The second to seventh respondents (Godfrey Katerere, Brawl Chikandiwa, Tavonga Vandirai, Lucia Chirilele, Nokhutula Dube and Faster Gono) are members of a faction of the first respondent while the eigth to fourteenth respondents (Berrington Zvanyanya, Samule Jijinka, P.Chikami, Z. Manara, A. Sibanda, J. Gwanyanya and Admore Hwarare) are members of the second faction.

The two factions are involved in a fierce battle to control the first respondent.

The fifteenth respondent (Zimbabwe Federation of Trade Unions) is ostensibly the mother body of the first respondent (Zimbabwe Sugar Milling Industry Workers Union) while the fourteenth respondent (Admore Hwarare) is cited in her official capacity.

The employer is, by virtue of the law, enjoined to transmit union dues to the first respondent.

The situation has been complicated by the fights and disagreements between the two factions set on wrestling and winning control over the first respondent.

The applicant is of the view, that, in order to safeguard the union dues they should be transmitted to a trustworthy and secure institution, namely, the Master of the High Court. This is to prevent the funds being misused or to stop or prevent the various warring factions seeking to apportion a slice of the cake to themselves.

As is usual in such applications, points in limine were raised.

Some of the points in limine seem to have been abandoned while others were seemingly overtaken by events.

Points in limine raised by the first to seventh respondents were;

Firstly, that the matter is not urgent.

Counsel for the first to seventh respondents referred to principles on urgency and various case law. She pointed out, that, the applicant filed heads of argument on 30 September 2019 as well as an amended draft order. These two sets of documents were only served on her, as counsel for the first to seventh respondents, ten minutes before the scheduled time for the hearing of this application. No warning was given of the amended draft order.

Counsel for the first to seventh respondents avers, that, in HMA38-19 the applicants chose to abide by the decision of the Court. She sought to demonstrate, that, the various cases relied upon by the applicants are either misplaced, irrelevant, or misunderstood. She averred, that, the applicants should not have approached the court without notifying all the parties.

In a long line of cases, the issue of urgency has been defined and traversed. Among other cases, see: Kuvarega v Registrar General and Another 1988 (1) ZLR 188 (HC); Shandong Taishon Sunlight Investments Limited v Yunnan Linkun Investments Group Company Limited & Others HH06-16…,.; Triple C Pigs (Partnership and Colcom Foods Limited) v The Commissioner General of Zimbabwe Revenue Authority HH07-07…,.; Document Support Centre (Private) Limited v T.F. Mapuvire HH117-06…,.

Counsel for the applicants argued, that, the matter is indeed urgent. He strongly based his argument on the fact that the applicants are enjoined, at law, to disburse union dues to the trade union every month lest they face civil or criminal liabilities.

He further pointed out, that, there has been a lot of infighting between the two factions of the first respondent. To that end, the two factions are battling, through the employer, and either faction is demanding union dues from the applicants.

A lot more was traversed by counsel for the applicants which spoke more to the merits of the case.

I am, however, of the view that urgency has been proved.

There is clear acrimony between the alleged factions. Pursuant to the judgment in HMA38-19 the fighting for control of the first respondent intensified. The appeal launched against the decision did not help matters either. The legal obligation of the applicants, to disburse union dues to the first respondent, is common cause.

The need to clarify how the disbursement, and to whom it should be made, is clearly an urgent matter.

I am satisfied, that, when the need to act arose, the applicants did act expeditiously in the circumstances of this case.

Interim Interdict or Final Order re: Mandamus or Mandatory Interdict and the Seeking or Granting of Final Interdicts

The applicants filed an Urgent Chamber Application on 26 September 2019. The first to seventh respondents (Zimbabwe Sugar Milling Industry Workers Union, Godfrey Katerere, Brawl Chikandiwa, Tavonga Vandirai, Lucia Chirilele, Nokhutula Dube and Faster Gono) filed opposing papers on the date of the hearing.

The 8th to 14th respondents (Berrington Zvanyanya, Samule Jijinka, P.Chikami, Z. Manara, A. Sibanda, J. Gwanyanya and Admore Hwarare) did not file any papers and their position is that they do not oppose the application, if the terms thereof are broadened to encapsulate their interests.

Mr K. Shamuyarira, a trade unionist representing the 15th respondent (Zimbabwe Federation of Trade Unions) is opposed to the application. He also did not file opposing papers.

The relief sought was amended at the eleventh hour.

The first to seventh respondents (Zimbabwe Sugar Milling Industry Workers Union, Godfrey Katerere, Brawl Chikandiwa, Tavonga Vandirai, Lucia Chirilele, Nokhutula Dube and Faster Gono) opposing papers were predicated upon the original relief sought.

The relief that is now sought reads as follows;

“1. INTERIM RELIEF SOUGHT

1.1 It is ordered that pending the final resolution of this matter either in the court of first instance or an appeal;

(a) The applicants are to deposit the 'Trade Union Dues' for the Zimbabwe Sugar Milling Industry Workers Union into the Master of the High Court Trust Account until the final resolution of SC518/19.

2. FINAL TERMS OF THE PROVISIONAL ORDER

2.1 The interim order is confirmed.

2.2 The 1st to 14th respondents shall pay costs of suit on an Attorney and client scale.”

The background of the matter can be traced back to a matter adjudicated upon by MAFUSIRE J in HMA38-19 referred to as Zvanyanya and Others v ZISMIWU and Others.

This matter was heard on 23 May 2019 and 27 June 2019 and the date of written reasons is 28 August 2019.

In HMA38-19 the applicants therein, who are members of a faction of a trade union, sought to have three respondents (namely 2nd, 3rd and 4th respondents, Godfrey Katerere, Brawl Chikandiwa and Tavonga Vandirai)) to be disqualified from membership of the trade union, and, flowing therefrom, to be disqualified from holding positions in the trade unions National Executive Committee. The applicants in HMA38-19 also sought an order to hold elections to choose members of the National Executive Committee and to hold annual general meetings in terms of its Constitution.

MAFUSIRE J resolved the issues by way of an order which reads as follows;

“(i) The second, third, and fourth respondents ceased being members of the first respondent upon the termination of their contracts of employment with the seventh respondent.

(ii) By reason of paragraph (i) above the second, third, and fourth respondents are hereby disqualified from holding any positions in the first respondents national executive committee.

(iii) The first respondent shall hold elections to choose members of the national executive committee within sixty (60) days of the date of this order, or within such other time frame as may be agreed upon.

(iv) The first respondent shall hold an annual general meeting in terms of its Constitution by no later than the 31st December 2019.

(v) The costs of this application shall be borne by the first, second, third, and fourth respondents, jointly and severally.”

The first to sixth respondents (Zimbabwe Sugar Milling Industry Workers Union, Godfrey Katerere, Brawl Chikandiwa, Tavonga Vandirai, Lucia Chirilele and Nokhutula Dube) have since appealed against the whole, final and definitive judgment under HMA38-19 to the Supreme Court. The appeal appears under cover of SC518/19.

It would appear that specifically because of the order under HMA38-19, and the developments thereafter, the acrimony between the parties intensified.

It may be necessary to identify the parties at this stage.

The first and second applicants (Triangle Ltd and Hippo Valley Estates Ltd) are the employers.

The first respondent (Zimbabwe Sugar Milling Industry Workers Union) is a registered trade union in terms of the laws of Zimbabwe.

The second to seventh respondents (Godfrey Katerere, Brawl Chikandiwa, Tavonga Vandirai, Lucia Chirilele, Nokhutula Dube and Faster Gono) are members of a faction of the first respondent while the eigth to fourteenth respondents (Berrington Zvanyanya, Samule Jijinka, P.Chikami, Z. Manara, A. Sibanda, J. Gwanyanya and Admore Hwarare) are members of the second faction.

The two factions are involved in a fierce battle to control the first respondent.

The fifteenth respondent (Zimbabwe Federation of Trade Unions) is ostensibly the mother body of the first respondent (Zimbabwe Sugar Milling Industry Workers Union) while the fourteenth respondent (Admore Hwarare) is cited in her official capacity.

The employer is, by virtue of the law, enjoined to transmit union dues to the first respondent.

The situation has been complicated by the fights and disagreements between the two factions set on wrestling and winning control over the first respondent.

The applicant is of the view, that, in order to safeguard the union dues they should be transmitted to a trustworthy and secure institution, namely, the Master of the High Court. This is to prevent the funds being misused or to stop or prevent the various warring factions seeking to apportion a slice of the cake to themselves.

As is usual in such applications, points in limine were raised....,.

Counsel for the first to seventh respondents also avers that the order sought is final in nature contrary to principles established in Brian Andrew Cawood v Elasto Madzingira HMA12-17....,.

I am not with counsel for the first to seventh respondents on her argument that the draft order is final in nature.

The draft order is, firstly, clearly aimed at release of the trade union dues to the Master of High Court Trust Account pending the resolution of SC518/19.

The final terms of the provisional order pertains the confirmation of the said interim order which interim order is predicated upon a resolution of SC518/19.

The facts of Brian Andrew Cawood v Elasto Madzingira HMA12-17 are clearly distinguishable from this case.

Pleadings re: Amendment to Pleadings, Summons, Declaration and Draft Orders iro Approach

The applicants filed an Urgent Chamber Application on 26 September 2019. The first to seventh respondents (Zimbabwe Sugar Milling Industry Workers Union, Godfrey Katerere, Brawl Chikandiwa, Tavonga Vandirai, Lucia Chirilele, Nokhutula Dube and Faster Gono) filed opposing papers on the date of the hearing.

The 8th to 14th respondents (Berrington Zvanyanya, Samule Jijinka, P.Chikami, Z. Manara, A. Sibanda, J. Gwanyanya and Admore Hwarare) did not file any papers and their position is that they do not oppose the application, if the terms thereof are broadened to encapsulate their interests.

Mr K. Shamuyarira, a trade unionist representing the 15th respondent (Zimbabwe Federation of Trade Unions) is opposed to the application. He also did not file opposing papers.

The relief sought was amended at the eleventh hour.

The first to seventh respondents (Zimbabwe Sugar Milling Industry Workers Union, Godfrey Katerere, Brawl Chikandiwa, Tavonga Vandirai, Lucia Chirilele, Nokhutula Dube and Faster Gono) opposing papers were predicated upon the original relief sought.

The relief that is now sought reads as follows;

“1. INTERIM RELIEF SOUGHT

1.1 It is ordered that pending the final resolution of this matter either in the court of first instance or an appeal;

(a) The applicants are to deposit the 'Trade Union Dues' for the Zimbabwe Sugar Milling Industry Workers Union into the Master of the High Court Trust Account until the final resolution of SC518/19.

2. FINAL TERMS OF THE PROVISIONAL ORDER

2.1 The interim order is confirmed.

2.2 The 1st to 14th respondents shall pay costs of suit on an Attorney and client scale.”

The background of the matter can be traced back to a matter adjudicated upon by MAFUSIRE J in HMA38-19 referred to as Zvanyanya and Others v ZISMIWU and Others.

This matter was heard on 23 May 2019 and 27 June 2019 and the date of written reasons is 28 August 2019.

In HMA38-19 the applicants therein, who are members of a faction of a trade union, sought to have three respondents (namely 2nd, 3rd and 4th respondents, Godfrey Katerere, Brawl Chikandiwa and Tavonga Vandirai)) to be disqualified from membership of the trade union, and, flowing therefrom, to be disqualified from holding positions in the trade unions National Executive Committee. The applicants in HMA38-19 also sought an order to hold elections to choose members of the National Executive Committee and to hold annual general meetings in terms of its Constitution.

MAFUSIRE J resolved the issues by way of an order which reads as follows;

“(i) The second, third, and fourth respondents ceased being members of the first respondent upon the termination of their contracts of employment with the seventh respondent.

(ii) By reason of paragraph (i) above the second, third, and fourth respondents are hereby disqualified from holding any positions in the first respondents national executive committee.

(iii) The first respondent shall hold elections to choose members of the national executive committee within sixty (60) days of the date of this order, or within such other time frame as may be agreed upon.

(iv) The first respondent shall hold an annual general meeting in terms of its Constitution by no later than the 31st December 2019.

(v) The costs of this application shall be borne by the first, second, third, and fourth respondents, jointly and severally.”

The first to sixth respondents (Zimbabwe Sugar Milling Industry Workers Union, Godfrey Katerere, Brawl Chikandiwa, Tavonga Vandirai, Lucia Chirilele and Nokhutula Dube) have since appealed against the whole, final and definitive judgment under HMA38-19 to the Supreme Court. The appeal appears under cover of SC518/19.

It would appear that specifically because of the order under HMA38-19, and the developments thereafter, the acrimony between the parties intensified.

It may be necessary to identify the parties at this stage.

The first and second applicants (Triangle Ltd and Hippo Valley Estates Ltd) are the employers.

The first respondent (Zimbabwe Sugar Milling Industry Workers Union) is a registered trade union in terms of the laws of Zimbabwe.

The second to seventh respondents (Godfrey Katerere, Brawl Chikandiwa, Tavonga Vandirai, Lucia Chirilele, Nokhutula Dube and Faster Gono) are members of a faction of the first respondent while the eigth to fourteenth respondents (Berrington Zvanyanya, Samule Jijinka, P.Chikami, Z. Manara, A. Sibanda, J. Gwanyanya and Admore Hwarare) are members of the second faction.

The two factions are involved in a fierce battle to control the first respondent.

The fifteenth respondent (Zimbabwe Federation of Trade Unions) is ostensibly the mother body of the first respondent (Zimbabwe Sugar Milling Industry Workers Union) while the fourteenth respondent (Admore Hwarare) is cited in her official capacity.

The employer is, by virtue of the law, enjoined to transmit union dues to the first respondent.

The situation has been complicated by the fights and disagreements between the two factions set on wrestling and winning control over the first respondent.

The applicant is of the view, that, in order to safeguard the union dues they should be transmitted to a trustworthy and secure institution, namely, the Master of the High Court. This is to prevent the funds being misused or to stop or prevent the various warring factions seeking to apportion a slice of the cake to themselves.

As is usual in such applications, points in limine were raised.

Some of the points in limine seem to have been abandoned while others were seemingly overtaken by events.

Points in limine raised by the first to seventh respondents were;...,.

Counsel for the first to seventh respondents..., pointed out, that, the applicant filed heads of argument on 30 September 2019 as well as an amended draft order. These two sets of documents were only served on her, as counsel for the first to seventh respondents, ten minutes before the scheduled time for the hearing of this application.

No warning was given of the amended draft order.

Counsel for the first to seventh respondents avers, that, in HMA38-19 the applicants chose to abide by the decision of the Court. She sought to demonstrate, that, the various cases relied upon by the applicants are either misplaced, irrelevant, or misunderstood.

She averred, that, the applicants should not have approached the court without notifying all the parties....,.

It is important to give proper notice to other parties of any amendments sought timeously and to serve them with the application.

In this case, there was an adjournment on the hearing date from 10:00hrs to 14:00hrs. This was an attempt to accommodate Advocate Zhuwarara at counsel for the applicant's behest.

Advocate Zhuwarara was said to be busy at the Supreme Court with another matter.

Advocate Zhuwarara did not make it at the end and counsel for the applicants decided to proceed representing the applicants.

I am of the view, that, the adjournment, to some extent, mitigated the delayed notification to the other parties of the amendments to the draft order.

Counsel for the first to seventh respondents, though partially disadvantaged because of receiving the applicants papers late in the day, appeared to rise to the occasion in the circumstances.

I have given deep thought to the various points in limine raised and am of the view that they are not meritorious.

Court Management re: Approach, Case Management, Postponement of Proceedings and Judicial Directives of the Court

The applicants filed an Urgent Chamber Application on 26 September 2019. The first to seventh respondents (Zimbabwe Sugar Milling Industry Workers Union, Godfrey Katerere, Brawl Chikandiwa, Tavonga Vandirai, Lucia Chirilele, Nokhutula Dube and Faster Gono) filed opposing papers on the date of the hearing.

The 8th to 14th respondents (Berrington Zvanyanya, Samule Jijinka, P.Chikami, Z. Manara, A. Sibanda, J. Gwanyanya and Admore Hwarare) did not file any papers and their position is that they do not oppose the application, if the terms thereof are broadened to encapsulate their interests.

Mr K. Shamuyarira, a trade unionist representing the 15th respondent (Zimbabwe Federation of Trade Unions) is opposed to the application. He also did not file opposing papers.

The relief sought was amended at the eleventh hour.

The first to seventh respondents (Zimbabwe Sugar Milling Industry Workers Union, Godfrey Katerere, Brawl Chikandiwa, Tavonga Vandirai, Lucia Chirilele, Nokhutula Dube and Faster Gono) opposing papers were predicated upon the original relief sought.

The relief that is now sought reads as follows;

“1. INTERIM RELIEF SOUGHT

1.1 It is ordered that pending the final resolution of this matter either in the court of first instance or an appeal;

(a) The applicants are to deposit the 'Trade Union Dues' for the Zimbabwe Sugar Milling Industry Workers Union into the Master of the High Court Trust Account until the final resolution of SC518/19.

2. FINAL TERMS OF THE PROVISIONAL ORDER

2.1 The interim order is confirmed.

2.2 The 1st to 14th respondents shall pay costs of suit on an Attorney and client scale.”

The background of the matter can be traced back to a matter adjudicated upon by MAFUSIRE J in HMA38-19 referred to as Zvanyanya and Others v ZISMIWU and Others.

This matter was heard on 23 May 2019 and 27 June 2019 and the date of written reasons is 28 August 2019.

In HMA38-19 the applicants therein, who are members of a faction of a trade union, sought to have three respondents (namely 2nd, 3rd and 4th respondents, Godfrey Katerere, Brawl Chikandiwa and Tavonga Vandirai)) to be disqualified from membership of the trade union, and, flowing therefrom, to be disqualified from holding positions in the trade unions National Executive Committee. The applicants in HMA38-19 also sought an order to hold elections to choose members of the National Executive Committee and to hold annual general meetings in terms of its Constitution.

MAFUSIRE J resolved the issues by way of an order which reads as follows;

“(i) The second, third, and fourth respondents ceased being members of the first respondent upon the termination of their contracts of employment with the seventh respondent.

(ii) By reason of paragraph (i) above the second, third, and fourth respondents are hereby disqualified from holding any positions in the first respondents national executive committee.

(iii) The first respondent shall hold elections to choose members of the national executive committee within sixty (60) days of the date of this order, or within such other time frame as may be agreed upon.

(iv) The first respondent shall hold an annual general meeting in terms of its Constitution by no later than the 31st December 2019.

(v) The costs of this application shall be borne by the first, second, third, and fourth respondents, jointly and severally.”

The first to sixth respondents (Zimbabwe Sugar Milling Industry Workers Union, Godfrey Katerere, Brawl Chikandiwa, Tavonga Vandirai, Lucia Chirilele and Nokhutula Dube) have since appealed against the whole, final and definitive judgment under HMA38-19 to the Supreme Court. The appeal appears under cover of SC518/19.

It would appear that specifically because of the order under HMA38-19, and the developments thereafter, the acrimony between the parties intensified.

It may be necessary to identify the parties at this stage.

The first and second applicants (Triangle Ltd and Hippo Valley Estates Ltd) are the employers.

The first respondent (Zimbabwe Sugar Milling Industry Workers Union) is a registered trade union in terms of the laws of Zimbabwe.

The second to seventh respondents (Godfrey Katerere, Brawl Chikandiwa, Tavonga Vandirai, Lucia Chirilele, Nokhutula Dube and Faster Gono) are members of a faction of the first respondent while the eigth to fourteenth respondents (Berrington Zvanyanya, Samule Jijinka, P.Chikami, Z. Manara, A. Sibanda, J. Gwanyanya and Admore Hwarare) are members of the second faction.

The two factions are involved in a fierce battle to control the first respondent.

The fifteenth respondent (Zimbabwe Federation of Trade Unions) is ostensibly the mother body of the first respondent (Zimbabwe Sugar Milling Industry Workers Union) while the fourteenth respondent (Admore Hwarare) is cited in her official capacity.

The employer is, by virtue of the law, enjoined to transmit union dues to the first respondent.

The situation has been complicated by the fights and disagreements between the two factions set on wrestling and winning control over the first respondent.

The applicant is of the view, that, in order to safeguard the union dues they should be transmitted to a trustworthy and secure institution, namely, the Master of the High Court. This is to prevent the funds being misused or to stop or prevent the various warring factions seeking to apportion a slice of the cake to themselves.

As is usual in such applications, points in limine were raised.

Some of the points in limine seem to have been abandoned while others were seemingly overtaken by events.

Points in limine raised by the first to seventh respondents were;...,.

Counsel for the first to seventh respondents..., pointed out, that, the applicant filed heads of argument on 30 September 2019 as well as an amended draft order. These two sets of documents were only served on her, as counsel for the first to seventh respondents, ten minutes before the scheduled time for the hearing of this application.

No warning was given of the amended draft order.

Counsel for the first to seventh respondents avers, that, in HMA38-19 the applicants chose to abide by the decision of the Court. She sought to demonstrate, that, the various cases relied upon by the applicants are either misplaced, irrelevant, or misunderstood.

She averred, that, the applicants should not have approached the court without notifying all the parties....,.

It is important to give proper notice to other parties of any amendments sought timeously and to serve them with the application.

In this case, there was an adjournment on the hearing date from 10:00hrs to 14:00hrs. This was an attempt to accommodate Advocate Zhuwarara at counsel for the applicant's behest.

Advocate Zhuwarara was said to be busy at the Supreme Court with another matter.

Advocate Zhuwarara did not make it at the end and counsel for the applicants decided to proceed representing the applicants.

I am of the view, that, the adjournment, to some extent, mitigated the delayed notification to the other parties of the amendments to the draft order.

Counsel for the first to seventh respondents, though partially disadvantaged because of receiving the applicants papers late in the day, appeared to rise to the occasion in the circumstances.

I have given deep thought to the various points in limine raised and am of the view that they are not meritorious.

Professional Ethics, Legal Duty to the Court and Clients, Dominus Litis and Correspondence with the Court

The applicants filed an Urgent Chamber Application on 26 September 2019. The first to seventh respondents (Zimbabwe Sugar Milling Industry Workers Union, Godfrey Katerere, Brawl Chikandiwa, Tavonga Vandirai, Lucia Chirilele, Nokhutula Dube and Faster Gono) filed opposing papers on the date of the hearing.

The 8th to 14th respondents (Berrington Zvanyanya, Samule Jijinka, P.Chikami, Z. Manara, A. Sibanda, J. Gwanyanya and Admore Hwarare) did not file any papers and their position is that they do not oppose the application, if the terms thereof are broadened to encapsulate their interests.

Mr K. Shamuyarira, a trade unionist representing the 15th respondent (Zimbabwe Federation of Trade Unions) is opposed to the application. He also did not file opposing papers.

The relief sought was amended at the eleventh hour.

The first to seventh respondents (Zimbabwe Sugar Milling Industry Workers Union, Godfrey Katerere, Brawl Chikandiwa, Tavonga Vandirai, Lucia Chirilele, Nokhutula Dube and Faster Gono) opposing papers were predicated upon the original relief sought.

The relief that is now sought reads as follows;

“1. INTERIM RELIEF SOUGHT

1.1 It is ordered that pending the final resolution of this matter either in the court of first instance or an appeal;

(a) The applicants are to deposit the 'Trade Union Dues' for the Zimbabwe Sugar Milling Industry Workers Union into the Master of the High Court Trust Account until the final resolution of SC518/19.

2. FINAL TERMS OF THE PROVISIONAL ORDER

2.1 The interim order is confirmed.

2.2 The 1st to 14th respondents shall pay costs of suit on an Attorney and client scale.”

The background of the matter can be traced back to a matter adjudicated upon by MAFUSIRE J in HMA38-19 referred to as Zvanyanya and Others v ZISMIWU and Others.

This matter was heard on 23 May 2019 and 27 June 2019 and the date of written reasons is 28 August 2019.

In HMA38-19 the applicants therein, who are members of a faction of a trade union, sought to have three respondents (namely 2nd, 3rd and 4th respondents, Godfrey Katerere, Brawl Chikandiwa and Tavonga Vandirai)) to be disqualified from membership of the trade union, and, flowing therefrom, to be disqualified from holding positions in the trade unions National Executive Committee. The applicants in HMA38-19 also sought an order to hold elections to choose members of the National Executive Committee and to hold annual general meetings in terms of its Constitution.

MAFUSIRE J resolved the issues by way of an order which reads as follows;

“(i) The second, third, and fourth respondents ceased being members of the first respondent upon the termination of their contracts of employment with the seventh respondent.

(ii) By reason of paragraph (i) above the second, third, and fourth respondents are hereby disqualified from holding any positions in the first respondents national executive committee.

(iii) The first respondent shall hold elections to choose members of the national executive committee within sixty (60) days of the date of this order, or within such other time frame as may be agreed upon.

(iv) The first respondent shall hold an annual general meeting in terms of its Constitution by no later than the 31st December 2019.

(v) The costs of this application shall be borne by the first, second, third, and fourth respondents, jointly and severally.”

The first to sixth respondents (Zimbabwe Sugar Milling Industry Workers Union, Godfrey Katerere, Brawl Chikandiwa, Tavonga Vandirai, Lucia Chirilele and Nokhutula Dube) have since appealed against the whole, final and definitive judgment under HMA38-19 to the Supreme Court. The appeal appears under cover of SC518/19.

It would appear that specifically because of the order under HMA38-19, and the developments thereafter, the acrimony between the parties intensified.

It may be necessary to identify the parties at this stage.

The first and second applicants (Triangle Ltd and Hippo Valley Estates Ltd) are the employers.

The first respondent (Zimbabwe Sugar Milling Industry Workers Union) is a registered trade union in terms of the laws of Zimbabwe.

The second to seventh respondents (Godfrey Katerere, Brawl Chikandiwa, Tavonga Vandirai, Lucia Chirilele, Nokhutula Dube and Faster Gono) are members of a faction of the first respondent while the eigth to fourteenth respondents (Berrington Zvanyanya, Samule Jijinka, P.Chikami, Z. Manara, A. Sibanda, J. Gwanyanya and Admore Hwarare) are members of the second faction.

The two factions are involved in a fierce battle to control the first respondent.

The fifteenth respondent (Zimbabwe Federation of Trade Unions) is ostensibly the mother body of the first respondent (Zimbabwe Sugar Milling Industry Workers Union) while the fourteenth respondent (Admore Hwarare) is cited in her official capacity.

The employer is, by virtue of the law, enjoined to transmit union dues to the first respondent.

The situation has been complicated by the fights and disagreements between the two factions set on wrestling and winning control over the first respondent.

The applicant is of the view, that, in order to safeguard the union dues they should be transmitted to a trustworthy and secure institution, namely, the Master of the High Court. This is to prevent the funds being misused or to stop or prevent the various warring factions seeking to apportion a slice of the cake to themselves.

As is usual in such applications, points in limine were raised.

Some of the points in limine seem to have been abandoned while others were seemingly overtaken by events.

Points in limine raised by the first to seventh respondents were;...,.

Counsel for the first to seventh respondents..., pointed out, that, the applicant filed heads of argument on 30 September 2019 as well as an amended draft order. These two sets of documents were only served on her, as counsel for the first to seventh respondents, ten minutes before the scheduled time for the hearing of this application.

No warning was given of the amended draft order.

Counsel for the first to seventh respondents avers, that, in HMA38-19 the applicants chose to abide by the decision of the Court. She sought to demonstrate, that, the various cases relied upon by the applicants are either misplaced, irrelevant, or misunderstood.

She averred, that, the applicants should not have approached the court without notifying all the parties....,.

It is important to give proper notice to other parties of any amendments sought timeously and to serve them with the application....,.

Counsel for the first to seventh respondents, though partially disadvantaged because of receiving the applicants papers late in the day, appeared to rise to the occasion in the circumstances.

Jurisdiction re: Approach iro Judicial Hierarchy and Court of Record

There was an adjournment on the hearing date from 10:00hrs to 14:00hrs. This was an attempt to accommodate Advocate Zhuwarara at counsel for the applicant's behest.

Advocate Zhuwarara was said to be busy at the Supreme Court with another matter.

Practicing Certificates and Right of Audience before Courts re: Non-Legal Practitioner Representative Capacity

Mr Shamuyarira, a trade unionist representing the fifteenth respondent (Zimbabwe Federation of Trade Unions) pointed out that the first respondent is their affiliate.

Interim Interdict or Final Order re: Judicial Fiduciary Role iro Tender or Payment and Trust Facilities Pendente Lite

The applicants filed an Urgent Chamber Application on 26 September 2019. The first to seventh respondents (Zimbabwe Sugar Milling Industry Workers Union, Godfrey Katerere, Brawl Chikandiwa, Tavonga Vandirai, Lucia Chirilele, Nokhutula Dube and Faster Gono) filed opposing papers on the date of the hearing.

The 8th to 14th respondents (Berrington Zvanyanya, Samule Jijinka, P.Chikami, Z. Manara, A. Sibanda, J. Gwanyanya and Admore Hwarare) did not file any papers and their position is that they do not oppose the application, if the terms thereof are broadened to encapsulate their interests.

Mr K. Shamuyarira, a trade unionist representing the 15th respondent (Zimbabwe Federation of Trade Unions) is opposed to the application. He also did not file opposing papers.

The relief sought was amended at the eleventh hour.

The first to seventh respondents (Zimbabwe Sugar Milling Industry Workers Union, Godfrey Katerere, Brawl Chikandiwa, Tavonga Vandirai, Lucia Chirilele, Nokhutula Dube and Faster Gono) opposing papers were predicated upon the original relief sought.

The relief that is now sought reads as follows;

“1. INTERIM RELIEF SOUGHT

1.1 It is ordered that pending the final resolution of this matter either in the court of first instance or an appeal;

(a) The applicants are to deposit the 'Trade Union Dues' for the Zimbabwe Sugar Milling Industry Workers Union into the Master of the High Court Trust Account until the final resolution of SC518/19.

2. FINAL TERMS OF THE PROVISIONAL ORDER

2.1 The interim order is confirmed.

2.2 The 1st to 14th respondents shall pay costs of suit on an Attorney and client scale.”

The background of the matter can be traced back to a matter adjudicated upon by MAFUSIRE J in HMA38-19 referred to as Zvanyanya and Others v ZISMIWU and Others.

This matter was heard on 23 May 2019 and 27 June 2019 and the date of written reasons is 28 August 2019.

In HMA38-19 the applicants therein, who are members of a faction of a trade union, sought to have three respondents (namely 2nd, 3rd and 4th respondents, Godfrey Katerere, Brawl Chikandiwa and Tavonga Vandirai)) to be disqualified from membership of the trade union, and, flowing therefrom, to be disqualified from holding positions in the trade unions National Executive Committee. The applicants in HMA38-19 also sought an order to hold elections to choose members of the National Executive Committee and to hold annual general meetings in terms of its Constitution.

MAFUSIRE J resolved the issues by way of an order which reads as follows;

“(i) The second, third, and fourth respondents ceased being members of the first respondent upon the termination of their contracts of employment with the seventh respondent.

(ii) By reason of paragraph (i) above the second, third, and fourth respondents are hereby disqualified from holding any positions in the first respondents national executive committee.

(iii) The first respondent shall hold elections to choose members of the national executive committee within sixty (60) days of the date of this order, or within such other time frame as may be agreed upon.

(iv) The first respondent shall hold an annual general meeting in terms of its Constitution by no later than the 31st December 2019.

(v) The costs of this application shall be borne by the first, second, third, and fourth respondents, jointly and severally.”

The first to sixth respondents (Zimbabwe Sugar Milling Industry Workers Union, Godfrey Katerere, Brawl Chikandiwa, Tavonga Vandirai, Lucia Chirilele and Nokhutula Dube) have since appealed against the whole, final and definitive judgment under HMA38-19 to the Supreme Court. The appeal appears under cover of SC518/19.

It would appear that specifically because of the order under HMA38-19, and the developments thereafter, the acrimony between the parties intensified.

It may be necessary to identify the parties at this stage.

The first and second applicants (Triangle Ltd and Hippo Valley Estates Ltd) are the employers.

The first respondent (Zimbabwe Sugar Milling Industry Workers Union) is a registered trade union in terms of the laws of Zimbabwe.

The second to seventh respondents (Godfrey Katerere, Brawl Chikandiwa, Tavonga Vandirai, Lucia Chirilele, Nokhutula Dube and Faster Gono) are members of a faction of the first respondent while the eigth to fourteenth respondents (Berrington Zvanyanya, Samule Jijinka, P.Chikami, Z. Manara, A. Sibanda, J. Gwanyanya and Admore Hwarare) are members of the second faction.

The two factions are involved in a fierce battle to control the first respondent.

The fifteenth respondent (Zimbabwe Federation of Trade Unions) is ostensibly the mother body of the first respondent (Zimbabwe Sugar Milling Industry Workers Union) while the fourteenth respondent (Admore Hwarare) is cited in her official capacity.

The employer is, by virtue of the law, enjoined to transmit union dues to the first respondent.

The situation has been complicated by the fights and disagreements between the two factions set on wrestling and winning control over the first respondent.

The applicant is of the view, that, in order to safeguard the union dues they should be transmitted to a trustworthy and secure institution, namely, the Master of the High Court. This is to prevent the funds being misused or to stop or prevent the various warring factions seeking to apportion a slice of the cake to themselves....,.

On the merits, I should point out what has been pointed out elsewhere, that the parties are involved in various cases wherein their battles appear unabated.

The point is made, that, pursuant to the judgment in HMA38-19 there are only two (2) executive members of the first respondent remaining.

The question posed is: what will happen if there is a deadlock?

Counsel for the first to seventh respondents argues, that, upon the appeal being lodged, the position reverses to that before the appeal.

Counsel for the first to seventh respondents made further submissions as follows;

(i) The applicants are the ones manufacturing the confusion.

(ii) The applicants created the problem by participating in a meeting of 13 July 2019.

(iii) The applicants seek to cripple the first respondent and only want to place their favourite candidates in the first respondent's executive committee before they can transmit dues to the first respondent.

While there is clearly a tug of war between the parties, there is need for a resolution one way or the other. There may also be some truth as to the interests of the applicants in the matter.

But, is the best resolution to continue paying union dues to the first respondent in the current situation bedevilled by division and factual fighting?

While there may be other avenues or solutions to the problem, I am determining the matter with an eye on the relief sought.

Justification has been given of the need for a neutral party to receive the union dues pending the Supreme Court resolution of the appeal.

I find that the Trust Fund of the Master of the High Court is a secure account to deposit the union dues in the face of various efforts to control the first respondent.

To some extent, not having access to the dues by either faction may knock sense into the various factions to put their houses in order so that normality prevails.

I am mindful of counsel for the 8th to 14th respondents submissions on the merits. It appears, however, that he was principally not opposed to the application.

He had concerns on broadening the relief sought.

Mr Shamuyarira, a trade unionist representing the fifteenth respondent (Zimbabwe Federation of Trade Unions) pointed out that the first respondent is their affiliate.

I have to mention, that, that position is not shared by all – see Annexure 'K'…, of the 1st to 7th respondents notice of opposition.

In the circumstances, I find that the application has merit.

It is hereby ordered, that, the application be and is hereby granted in terms of the draft order.

Interim Interdict Pendente Lite and Stay of Execution re: Approach

The applicants filed an Urgent Chamber Application on 26 September 2019. The first to seventh respondents (Zimbabwe Sugar Milling Industry Workers Union, Godfrey Katerere, Brawl Chikandiwa, Tavonga Vandirai, Lucia Chirilele, Nokhutula Dube and Faster Gono) filed opposing papers on the date of the hearing.

The 8th to 14th respondents (Berrington Zvanyanya, Samule Jijinka, P.Chikami, Z. Manara, A. Sibanda, J. Gwanyanya and Admore Hwarare) did not file any papers and their position is that they do not oppose the application, if the terms thereof are broadened to encapsulate their interests.

Mr K. Shamuyarira, a trade unionist representing the 15th respondent (Zimbabwe Federation of Trade Unions) is opposed to the application. He also did not file opposing papers.

The relief sought was amended at the eleventh hour.

The first to seventh respondents (Zimbabwe Sugar Milling Industry Workers Union, Godfrey Katerere, Brawl Chikandiwa, Tavonga Vandirai, Lucia Chirilele, Nokhutula Dube and Faster Gono) opposing papers were predicated upon the original relief sought.

The relief that is now sought reads as follows;

“1. INTERIM RELIEF SOUGHT

1.1 It is ordered that pending the final resolution of this matter either in the court of first instance or an appeal;

(a) The applicants are to deposit the 'Trade Union Dues' for the Zimbabwe Sugar Milling Industry Workers Union into the Master of the High Court Trust Account until the final resolution of SC518/19.

2. FINAL TERMS OF THE PROVISIONAL ORDER

2.1 The interim order is confirmed.

2.2 The 1st to 14th respondents shall pay costs of suit on an Attorney and client scale.”

The background of the matter can be traced back to a matter adjudicated upon by MAFUSIRE J in HMA38-19 referred to as Zvanyanya and Others v ZISMIWU and Others.

This matter was heard on 23 May 2019 and 27 June 2019 and the date of written reasons is 28 August 2019.

In HMA38-19 the applicants therein, who are members of a faction of a trade union, sought to have three respondents (namely 2nd, 3rd and 4th respondents, Godfrey Katerere, Brawl Chikandiwa and Tavonga Vandirai)) to be disqualified from membership of the trade union, and, flowing therefrom, to be disqualified from holding positions in the trade unions National Executive Committee. The applicants in HMA38-19 also sought an order to hold elections to choose members of the National Executive Committee and to hold annual general meetings in terms of its Constitution.

MAFUSIRE J resolved the issues by way of an order which reads as follows;

“(i) The second, third, and fourth respondents ceased being members of the first respondent upon the termination of their contracts of employment with the seventh respondent.

(ii) By reason of paragraph (i) above the second, third, and fourth respondents are hereby disqualified from holding any positions in the first respondents national executive committee.

(iii) The first respondent shall hold elections to choose members of the national executive committee within sixty (60) days of the date of this order, or within such other time frame as may be agreed upon.

(iv) The first respondent shall hold an annual general meeting in terms of its Constitution by no later than the 31st December 2019.

(v) The costs of this application shall be borne by the first, second, third, and fourth respondents, jointly and severally.”

The first to sixth respondents (Zimbabwe Sugar Milling Industry Workers Union, Godfrey Katerere, Brawl Chikandiwa, Tavonga Vandirai, Lucia Chirilele and Nokhutula Dube) have since appealed against the whole, final and definitive judgment under HMA38-19 to the Supreme Court. The appeal appears under cover of SC518/19.

It would appear that specifically because of the order under HMA38-19, and the developments thereafter, the acrimony between the parties intensified.

It may be necessary to identify the parties at this stage.

The first and second applicants (Triangle Ltd and Hippo Valley Estates Ltd) are the employers.

The first respondent (Zimbabwe Sugar Milling Industry Workers Union) is a registered trade union in terms of the laws of Zimbabwe.

The second to seventh respondents (Godfrey Katerere, Brawl Chikandiwa, Tavonga Vandirai, Lucia Chirilele, Nokhutula Dube and Faster Gono) are members of a faction of the first respondent while the eigth to fourteenth respondents (Berrington Zvanyanya, Samule Jijinka, P.Chikami, Z. Manara, A. Sibanda, J. Gwanyanya and Admore Hwarare) are members of the second faction.

The two factions are involved in a fierce battle to control the first respondent.

The fifteenth respondent (Zimbabwe Federation of Trade Unions) is ostensibly the mother body of the first respondent (Zimbabwe Sugar Milling Industry Workers Union) while the fourteenth respondent (Admore Hwarare) is cited in her official capacity.

The employer is, by virtue of the law, enjoined to transmit union dues to the first respondent.

The situation has been complicated by the fights and disagreements between the two factions set on wrestling and winning control over the first respondent.

The applicant is of the view, that, in order to safeguard the union dues they should be transmitted to a trustworthy and secure institution, namely, the Master of the High Court. This is to prevent the funds being misused or to stop or prevent the various warring factions seeking to apportion a slice of the cake to themselves....,.

On the merits, I should point out what has been pointed out elsewhere, that the parties are involved in various cases wherein their battles appear unabated.

The point is made, that, pursuant to the judgment in HMA38-19 there are only two (2) executive members of the first respondent remaining.

The question posed is: what will happen if there is a deadlock?

Counsel for the first to seventh respondents argues, that, upon the appeal being lodged, the position reverses to that before the appeal.

Counsel for the first to seventh respondents made further submissions as follows;

(i) The applicants are the ones manufacturing the confusion.

(ii) The applicants created the problem by participating in a meeting of 13 July 2019.

(iii) The applicants seek to cripple the first respondent and only want to place their favourite candidates in the first respondent's executive committee before they can transmit dues to the first respondent.

While there is clearly a tug of war between the parties, there is need for a resolution one way or the other. There may also be some truth as to the interests of the applicants in the matter.

But, is the best resolution to continue paying union dues to the first respondent in the current situation bedevilled by division and factual fighting?

While there may be other avenues or solutions to the problem, I am determining the matter with an eye on the relief sought.

Justification has been given of the need for a neutral party to receive the union dues pending the Supreme Court resolution of the appeal.

I find that the Trust Fund of the Master of the High Court is a secure account to deposit the union dues in the face of various efforts to control the first respondent.

To some extent, not having access to the dues by either faction may knock sense into the various factions to put their houses in order so that normality prevails.

I am mindful of counsel for the 8th to 14th respondents submissions on the merits. It appears, however, that he was principally not opposed to the application.

He had concerns on broadening the relief sought.

Mr Shamuyarira, a trade unionist representing the fifteenth respondent (Zimbabwe Federation of Trade Unions) pointed out that the first respondent is their affiliate.

I have to mention, that, that position is not shared by all – see Annexure 'K'…, of the 1st to 7th respondents notice of opposition.

In the circumstances, I find that the application has merit.

It is hereby ordered, that, the application be and is hereby granted in terms of the draft order.

Workers Committee, Trade Unions, Union Membership, Legal Representation and Obligations of Workers Representatives

The applicants filed an Urgent Chamber Application on 26 September 2019. The first to seventh respondents (Zimbabwe Sugar Milling Industry Workers Union, Godfrey Katerere, Brawl Chikandiwa, Tavonga Vandirai, Lucia Chirilele, Nokhutula Dube and Faster Gono) filed opposing papers on the date of the hearing.

The 8th to 14th respondents (Berrington Zvanyanya, Samule Jijinka, P.Chikami, Z. Manara, A. Sibanda, J. Gwanyanya and Admore Hwarare) did not file any papers and their position is that they do not oppose the application, if the terms thereof are broadened to encapsulate their interests.

Mr K. Shamuyarira, a trade unionist representing the 15th respondent (Zimbabwe Federation of Trade Unions) is opposed to the application. He also did not file opposing papers.

The relief sought was amended at the eleventh hour.

The first to seventh respondents (Zimbabwe Sugar Milling Industry Workers Union, Godfrey Katerere, Brawl Chikandiwa, Tavonga Vandirai, Lucia Chirilele, Nokhutula Dube and Faster Gono) opposing papers were predicated upon the original relief sought.

The relief that is now sought reads as follows;

“1. INTERIM RELIEF SOUGHT

1.1 It is ordered that pending the final resolution of this matter either in the court of first instance or an appeal;

(a) The applicants are to deposit the 'Trade Union Dues' for the Zimbabwe Sugar Milling Industry Workers Union into the Master of the High Court Trust Account until the final resolution of SC518/19.

2. FINAL TERMS OF THE PROVISIONAL ORDER

2.1 The interim order is confirmed.

2.2 The 1st to 14th respondents shall pay costs of suit on an Attorney and client scale.”

The background of the matter can be traced back to a matter adjudicated upon by MAFUSIRE J in HMA38-19 referred to as Zvanyanya and Others v ZISMIWU and Others.

This matter was heard on 23 May 2019 and 27 June 2019 and the date of written reasons is 28 August 2019.

In HMA38-19 the applicants therein, who are members of a faction of a trade union, sought to have three respondents (namely 2nd, 3rd and 4th respondents, Godfrey Katerere, Brawl Chikandiwa and Tavonga Vandirai)) to be disqualified from membership of the trade union, and, flowing therefrom, to be disqualified from holding positions in the trade unions National Executive Committee. The applicants in HMA38-19 also sought an order to hold elections to choose members of the National Executive Committee and to hold annual general meetings in terms of its Constitution.

MAFUSIRE J resolved the issues by way of an order which reads as follows;

“(i) The second, third, and fourth respondents ceased being members of the first respondent upon the termination of their contracts of employment with the seventh respondent.

(ii) By reason of paragraph (i) above the second, third, and fourth respondents are hereby disqualified from holding any positions in the first respondents national executive committee.

(iii) The first respondent shall hold elections to choose members of the national executive committee within sixty (60) days of the date of this order, or within such other time frame as may be agreed upon.

(iv) The first respondent shall hold an annual general meeting in terms of its Constitution by no later than the 31st December 2019.

(v) The costs of this application shall be borne by the first, second, third, and fourth respondents, jointly and severally.”

The first to sixth respondents (Zimbabwe Sugar Milling Industry Workers Union, Godfrey Katerere, Brawl Chikandiwa, Tavonga Vandirai, Lucia Chirilele and Nokhutula Dube) have since appealed against the whole, final and definitive judgment under HMA38-19 to the Supreme Court. The appeal appears under cover of SC518/19.

It would appear that specifically because of the order under HMA38-19, and the developments thereafter, the acrimony between the parties intensified.

It may be necessary to identify the parties at this stage.

The first and second applicants (Triangle Ltd and Hippo Valley Estates Ltd) are the employers.

The first respondent (Zimbabwe Sugar Milling Industry Workers Union) is a registered trade union in terms of the laws of Zimbabwe.

The second to seventh respondents (Godfrey Katerere, Brawl Chikandiwa, Tavonga Vandirai, Lucia Chirilele, Nokhutula Dube and Faster Gono) are members of a faction of the first respondent while the eigth to fourteenth respondents (Berrington Zvanyanya, Samule Jijinka, P.Chikami, Z. Manara, A. Sibanda, J. Gwanyanya and Admore Hwarare) are members of the second faction.

The two factions are involved in a fierce battle to control the first respondent.

The fifteenth respondent (Zimbabwe Federation of Trade Unions) is ostensibly the mother body of the first respondent (Zimbabwe Sugar Milling Industry Workers Union) while the fourteenth respondent (Admore Hwarare) is cited in her official capacity.

The employer is, by virtue of the law, enjoined to transmit union dues to the first respondent.

The situation has been complicated by the fights and disagreements between the two factions set on wrestling and winning control over the first respondent.

The applicant is of the view, that, in order to safeguard the union dues they should be transmitted to a trustworthy and secure institution, namely, the Master of the High Court. This is to prevent the funds being misused or to stop or prevent the various warring factions seeking to apportion a slice of the cake to themselves....,.

On the merits, I should point out what has been pointed out elsewhere, that the parties are involved in various cases wherein their battles appear unabated.

The point is made, that, pursuant to the judgment in HMA38-19 there are only two (2) executive members of the first respondent remaining.

The question posed is: what will happen if there is a deadlock?

Counsel for the first to seventh respondents argues, that, upon the appeal being lodged, the position reverses to that before the appeal.

Counsel for the first to seventh respondents made further submissions as follows;

(i) The applicants are the ones manufacturing the confusion.

(ii) The applicants created the problem by participating in a meeting of 13 July 2019.

(iii) The applicants seek to cripple the first respondent and only want to place their favourite candidates in the first respondent's executive committee before they can transmit dues to the first respondent.

While there is clearly a tug of war between the parties, there is need for a resolution one way or the other. There may also be some truth as to the interests of the applicants in the matter.

But, is the best resolution to continue paying union dues to the first respondent in the current situation bedevilled by division and factual fighting?

While there may be other avenues or solutions to the problem, I am determining the matter with an eye on the relief sought.

Justification has been given of the need for a neutral party to receive the union dues pending the Supreme Court resolution of the appeal.

I find that the Trust Fund of the Master of the High Court is a secure account to deposit the union dues in the face of various efforts to control the first respondent.

To some extent, not having access to the dues by either faction may knock sense into the various factions to put their houses in order so that normality prevails.

I am mindful of counsel for the 8th to 14th respondents submissions on the merits. It appears, however, that he was principally not opposed to the application.

He had concerns on broadening the relief sought.

Mr Shamuyarira, a trade unionist representing the fifteenth respondent (Zimbabwe Federation of Trade Unions) pointed out that the first respondent is their affiliate.

I have to mention, that, that position is not shared by all – see Annexure 'K'…, of the 1st to 7th respondents notice of opposition.

In the circumstances, I find that the application has merit.

It is hereby ordered, that, the application be and is hereby granted in terms of the draft order.

Objectives, Vesting of Administrative Powers, Disputes, Derivative Actions and the Proper Plaintiff Rule

The applicants filed an Urgent Chamber Application on 26 September 2019. The first to seventh respondents (Zimbabwe Sugar Milling Industry Workers Union, Godfrey Katerere, Brawl Chikandiwa, Tavonga Vandirai, Lucia Chirilele, Nokhutula Dube and Faster Gono) filed opposing papers on the date of the hearing.

The 8th to 14th respondents (Berrington Zvanyanya, Samule Jijinka, P.Chikami, Z. Manara, A. Sibanda, J. Gwanyanya and Admore Hwarare) did not file any papers and their position is that they do not oppose the application, if the terms thereof are broadened to encapsulate their interests.

Mr K. Shamuyarira, a trade unionist representing the 15th respondent (Zimbabwe Federation of Trade Unions) is opposed to the application. He also did not file opposing papers.

The relief sought was amended at the eleventh hour.

The first to seventh respondents (Zimbabwe Sugar Milling Industry Workers Union, Godfrey Katerere, Brawl Chikandiwa, Tavonga Vandirai, Lucia Chirilele, Nokhutula Dube and Faster Gono) opposing papers were predicated upon the original relief sought.

The relief that is now sought reads as follows;

“1. INTERIM RELIEF SOUGHT

1.1 It is ordered that pending the final resolution of this matter either in the court of first instance or an appeal;

(a) The applicants are to deposit the 'Trade Union Dues' for the Zimbabwe Sugar Milling Industry Workers Union into the Master of the High Court Trust Account until the final resolution of SC518/19.

2. FINAL TERMS OF THE PROVISIONAL ORDER

2.1 The interim order is confirmed.

2.2 The 1st to 14th respondents shall pay costs of suit on an Attorney and client scale.”

The background of the matter can be traced back to a matter adjudicated upon by MAFUSIRE J in HMA38-19 referred to as Zvanyanya and Others v ZISMIWU and Others.

This matter was heard on 23 May 2019 and 27 June 2019 and the date of written reasons is 28 August 2019.

In HMA38-19 the applicants therein, who are members of a faction of a trade union, sought to have three respondents (namely 2nd, 3rd and 4th respondents, Godfrey Katerere, Brawl Chikandiwa and Tavonga Vandirai)) to be disqualified from membership of the trade union, and, flowing therefrom, to be disqualified from holding positions in the trade unions National Executive Committee. The applicants in HMA38-19 also sought an order to hold elections to choose members of the National Executive Committee and to hold annual general meetings in terms of its Constitution.

MAFUSIRE J resolved the issues by way of an order which reads as follows;

“(i) The second, third, and fourth respondents ceased being members of the first respondent upon the termination of their contracts of employment with the seventh respondent.

(ii) By reason of paragraph (i) above the second, third, and fourth respondents are hereby disqualified from holding any positions in the first respondents national executive committee.

(iii) The first respondent shall hold elections to choose members of the national executive committee within sixty (60) days of the date of this order, or within such other time frame as may be agreed upon.

(iv) The first respondent shall hold an annual general meeting in terms of its Constitution by no later than the 31st December 2019.

(v) The costs of this application shall be borne by the first, second, third, and fourth respondents, jointly and severally.”

The first to sixth respondents (Zimbabwe Sugar Milling Industry Workers Union, Godfrey Katerere, Brawl Chikandiwa, Tavonga Vandirai, Lucia Chirilele and Nokhutula Dube) have since appealed against the whole, final and definitive judgment under HMA38-19 to the Supreme Court. The appeal appears under cover of SC518/19.

It would appear that specifically because of the order under HMA38-19, and the developments thereafter, the acrimony between the parties intensified.

It may be necessary to identify the parties at this stage.

The first and second applicants (Triangle Ltd and Hippo Valley Estates Ltd) are the employers.

The first respondent (Zimbabwe Sugar Milling Industry Workers Union) is a registered trade union in terms of the laws of Zimbabwe.

The second to seventh respondents (Godfrey Katerere, Brawl Chikandiwa, Tavonga Vandirai, Lucia Chirilele, Nokhutula Dube and Faster Gono) are members of a faction of the first respondent while the eigth to fourteenth respondents (Berrington Zvanyanya, Samule Jijinka, P.Chikami, Z. Manara, A. Sibanda, J. Gwanyanya and Admore Hwarare) are members of the second faction.

The two factions are involved in a fierce battle to control the first respondent.

The fifteenth respondent (Zimbabwe Federation of Trade Unions) is ostensibly the mother body of the first respondent (Zimbabwe Sugar Milling Industry Workers Union) while the fourteenth respondent (Admore Hwarare) is cited in her official capacity.

The employer is, by virtue of the law, enjoined to transmit union dues to the first respondent.

The situation has been complicated by the fights and disagreements between the two factions set on wrestling and winning control over the first respondent.

The applicant is of the view, that, in order to safeguard the union dues they should be transmitted to a trustworthy and secure institution, namely, the Master of the High Court. This is to prevent the funds being misused or to stop or prevent the various warring factions seeking to apportion a slice of the cake to themselves....,.

On the merits, I should point out what has been pointed out elsewhere, that the parties are involved in various cases wherein their battles appear unabated.

The point is made, that, pursuant to the judgment in HMA38-19 there are only two (2) executive members of the first respondent remaining.

The question posed is: what will happen if there is a deadlock?

Counsel for the first to seventh respondents argues, that, upon the appeal being lodged, the position reverses to that before the appeal.

Counsel for the first to seventh respondents made further submissions as follows;

(i) The applicants are the ones manufacturing the confusion.

(ii) The applicants created the problem by participating in a meeting of 13 July 2019.

(iii) The applicants seek to cripple the first respondent and only want to place their favourite candidates in the first respondent's executive committee before they can transmit dues to the first respondent.

While there is clearly a tug of war between the parties, there is need for a resolution one way or the other. There may also be some truth as to the interests of the applicants in the matter.

But, is the best resolution to continue paying union dues to the first respondent in the current situation bedevilled by division and factual fighting?

While there may be other avenues or solutions to the problem, I am determining the matter with an eye on the relief sought.

Justification has been given of the need for a neutral party to receive the union dues pending the Supreme Court resolution of the appeal.

I find that the Trust Fund of the Master of the High Court is a secure account to deposit the union dues in the face of various efforts to control the first respondent.

To some extent, not having access to the dues by either faction may knock sense into the various factions to put their houses in order so that normality prevails.

I am mindful of counsel for the 8th to 14th respondents submissions on the merits. It appears, however, that he was principally not opposed to the application.

He had concerns on broadening the relief sought.

Mr Shamuyarira, a trade unionist representing the fifteenth respondent (Zimbabwe Federation of Trade Unions) pointed out that the first respondent is their affiliate.

I have to mention, that, that position is not shared by all – see Annexure 'K'…, of the 1st to 7th respondents notice of opposition.

In the circumstances, I find that the application has merit.

It is hereby ordered, that, the application be and is hereby granted in terms of the draft order.

Appeal, Leave to Appeal, Leave to Execute Pending Appeal re: Suspension of Orders Pending Appeal & Quasi-Judicial Rulings

The applicants filed an Urgent Chamber Application on 26 September 2019. The first to seventh respondents (Zimbabwe Sugar Milling Industry Workers Union, Godfrey Katerere, Brawl Chikandiwa, Tavonga Vandirai, Lucia Chirilele, Nokhutula Dube and Faster Gono) filed opposing papers on the date of the hearing.

The 8th to 14th respondents (Berrington Zvanyanya, Samule Jijinka, P.Chikami, Z. Manara, A. Sibanda, J. Gwanyanya and Admore Hwarare) did not file any papers and their position is that they do not oppose the application, if the terms thereof are broadened to encapsulate their interests.

Mr K. Shamuyarira, a trade unionist representing the 15th respondent (Zimbabwe Federation of Trade Unions) is opposed to the application. He also did not file opposing papers.

The relief sought was amended at the eleventh hour.

The first to seventh respondents (Zimbabwe Sugar Milling Industry Workers Union, Godfrey Katerere, Brawl Chikandiwa, Tavonga Vandirai, Lucia Chirilele, Nokhutula Dube and Faster Gono) opposing papers were predicated upon the original relief sought.

The relief that is now sought reads as follows;

“1. INTERIM RELIEF SOUGHT

1.1 It is ordered that pending the final resolution of this matter either in the court of first instance or an appeal;

(a) The applicants are to deposit the 'Trade Union Dues' for the Zimbabwe Sugar Milling Industry Workers Union into the Master of the High Court Trust Account until the final resolution of SC518/19.

2. FINAL TERMS OF THE PROVISIONAL ORDER

2.1 The interim order is confirmed.

2.2 The 1st to 14th respondents shall pay costs of suit on an Attorney and client scale.”

The background of the matter can be traced back to a matter adjudicated upon by MAFUSIRE J in HMA38-19 referred to as Zvanyanya and Others v ZISMIWU and Others.

This matter was heard on 23 May 2019 and 27 June 2019 and the date of written reasons is 28 August 2019.

In HMA38-19 the applicants therein, who are members of a faction of a trade union, sought to have three respondents (namely 2nd, 3rd and 4th respondents, Godfrey Katerere, Brawl Chikandiwa and Tavonga Vandirai)) to be disqualified from membership of the trade union, and, flowing therefrom, to be disqualified from holding positions in the trade unions National Executive Committee. The applicants in HMA38-19 also sought an order to hold elections to choose members of the National Executive Committee and to hold annual general meetings in terms of its Constitution.

MAFUSIRE J resolved the issues by way of an order which reads as follows;

“(i) The second, third, and fourth respondents ceased being members of the first respondent upon the termination of their contracts of employment with the seventh respondent.

(ii) By reason of paragraph (i) above the second, third, and fourth respondents are hereby disqualified from holding any positions in the first respondents national executive committee.

(iii) The first respondent shall hold elections to choose members of the national executive committee within sixty (60) days of the date of this order, or within such other time frame as may be agreed upon.

(iv) The first respondent shall hold an annual general meeting in terms of its Constitution by no later than the 31st December 2019.

(v) The costs of this application shall be borne by the first, second, third, and fourth respondents, jointly and severally.”

The first to sixth respondents (Zimbabwe Sugar Milling Industry Workers Union, Godfrey Katerere, Brawl Chikandiwa, Tavonga Vandirai, Lucia Chirilele and Nokhutula Dube) have since appealed against the whole, final and definitive judgment under HMA38-19 to the Supreme Court. The appeal appears under cover of SC518/19.

It would appear that specifically because of the order under HMA38-19, and the developments thereafter, the acrimony between the parties intensified.

It may be necessary to identify the parties at this stage.

The first and second applicants (Triangle Ltd and Hippo Valley Estates Ltd) are the employers.

The first respondent (Zimbabwe Sugar Milling Industry Workers Union) is a registered trade union in terms of the laws of Zimbabwe.

The second to seventh respondents (Godfrey Katerere, Brawl Chikandiwa, Tavonga Vandirai, Lucia Chirilele, Nokhutula Dube and Faster Gono) are members of a faction of the first respondent while the eigth to fourteenth respondents (Berrington Zvanyanya, Samule Jijinka, P.Chikami, Z. Manara, A. Sibanda, J. Gwanyanya and Admore Hwarare) are members of the second faction.

The two factions are involved in a fierce battle to control the first respondent.

The fifteenth respondent (Zimbabwe Federation of Trade Unions) is ostensibly the mother body of the first respondent (Zimbabwe Sugar Milling Industry Workers Union) while the fourteenth respondent (Admore Hwarare) is cited in her official capacity.

The employer is, by virtue of the law, enjoined to transmit union dues to the first respondent.

The situation has been complicated by the fights and disagreements between the two factions set on wrestling and winning control over the first respondent.

The applicant is of the view, that, in order to safeguard the union dues they should be transmitted to a trustworthy and secure institution, namely, the Master of the High Court. This is to prevent the funds being misused or to stop or prevent the various warring factions seeking to apportion a slice of the cake to themselves....,.

On the merits, I should point out what has been pointed out elsewhere, that the parties are involved in various cases wherein their battles appear unabated.

The point is made, that, pursuant to the judgment in HMA38-19 there are only two (2) executive members of the first respondent remaining.

The question posed is: what will happen if there is a deadlock?

Counsel for the first to seventh respondents argues, that, upon the appeal being lodged, the position reverses to that before the appeal.

Counsel for the first to seventh respondents made further submissions as follows;

(i) The applicants are the ones manufacturing the confusion.

(ii) The applicants created the problem by participating in a meeting of 13 July 2019.

(iii) The applicants seek to cripple the first respondent and only want to place their favourite candidates in the first respondent's executive committee before they can transmit dues to the first respondent.

While there is clearly a tug of war between the parties, there is need for a resolution one way or the other. There may also be some truth as to the interests of the applicants in the matter.

But, is the best resolution to continue paying union dues to the first respondent in the current situation bedevilled by division and factual fighting?

While there may be other avenues or solutions to the problem, I am determining the matter with an eye on the relief sought.

Justification has been given of the need for a neutral party to receive the union dues pending the Supreme Court resolution of the appeal.

I find that the Trust Fund of the Master of the High Court is a secure account to deposit the union dues in the face of various efforts to control the first respondent.

To some extent, not having access to the dues by either faction may knock sense into the various factions to put their houses in order so that normality prevails.

I am mindful of counsel for the 8th to 14th respondents submissions on the merits. It appears, however, that he was principally not opposed to the application.

He had concerns on broadening the relief sought.

Mr Shamuyarira, a trade unionist representing the fifteenth respondent (Zimbabwe Federation of Trade Unions) pointed out that the first respondent is their affiliate.

I have to mention, that, that position is not shared by all – see Annexure 'K'…, of the 1st to 7th respondents notice of opposition.

In the circumstances, I find that the application has merit.

It is hereby ordered, that, the application be and is hereby granted in terms of the draft order.

Law Portal
Zimbabwe

HMA47-19 - TRIANGLE LIMITED and HIPPO VALLEY ESTATES LIMITED vs ZIMBABWE SUGAR MILLING INDUSTRY WORKERS UNION (ZSMIWU) and OTHERS

Cause of Action and Draft Orders re: Appearance to Defend iro Effect of Non-Appearance

Urgency re: Approach, the Principle of Equality of Treatment & Discretion of the Court to Hear Oral Arguments on Urgency

Urgency re: Land Reform, Spoliation or Mandament van Spolie Proceedings and Property Disputes

Urgency re: Approach iro Time, Consequent and Remedial Alternative Considerations of Urgency

Interim Interdict or Final Order re: Mandamus or Mandatory Interdict and the Seeking or Granting of Final Interdicts

Pleadings re: Amendment to Pleadings, Summons, Declaration and Draft Orders iro Approach

Court Management re: Approach, Case Management, Postponement of Proceedings and Judicial Directives of the Court

Professional Ethics, Legal Duty to the Court and Clients, Dominus Litis and Correspondence with the Court

Jurisdiction re: Approach iro Judicial Hierarchy and Court of Record

Practicing Certificates and Right of Audience before Courts re: Non-Legal Practitioner Representative Capacity

Interim Interdict or Final Order re: Judicial Fiduciary Role iro Tender or Payment and Trust Facilities Pendente Lite

Interim Interdict Pendente Lite and Stay of Execution re: Approach

Workers Committee, Trade Unions, Union Membership, Legal Representation and Obligations of Workers Representatives

Objectives, Vesting of Administrative Powers, Disputes, Derivative Actions and the Proper Plaintiff Rule

Appeal, Leave to Appeal, Leave to Execute Pending Appeal re: Suspension of Orders Pending Appeal & Quasi-Judicial Rulings

Categories

Law Portal Zimbabwe

HMA47-19 - TRIANGLE LIMITED and HIPPO VALLEY ESTATES LIMITED vs ZIMBABWE SUGAR MILLING INDUSTRY WORKERS UNION (ZSMIWU) and OTHERS

Categories

Your Donation.

Law Portal
Zimbabwe