Zimpapers Logo

Mr Caleb Sithole — a former employee — had demanded US$17,9 million for services he rendered to Kingstons as a regional manager.
But Justice Ben Hlatshwayo has rescinded the earlier ruling by consent of both parties’ lawyers and reduced Mr Sithole’s claim to US$6 750, which he said should be paid within three months.

In his ruling, Justice Hlatshwayo ordered the Deputy Sheriff to immediately return all seized property forthwith.
The Deputy Sheriff had last week confiscated office property from Kingstons headquarters in the city centre including desks, chairs and tables.
“The order granted in case number 7216/10 on 25 November 2010 be and hereby rescinded. The second respondent (Deputy Sheriff) is hereby ordered to forthwith stay execution of the order granted in case number 7216/10 and to immediately return applicant’s assets removed in execution.

“Applicant (Kingstons) shall make a full and final payment to the first respondent (Sithole) in the sum of US$6 750 to be paid at the rate of US$2 000 per month with effect from the February 28, 2011. . . that the applicant shall deduct US$750 from the money due to first respondent (Deputy Sheriff) to cover costs of collecting goods removed in execution,” said Justice Hlatshwayo.

Justice Hlatshwayo said he wanted a lasting solution to the dispute.
Kingstons, through their lawyers, had submitted to court that the Labour Court rejected the payment of that amount, which it deemed to be outrageous.

Further, the court ordered that Mr Sithole would be paid whatever amount would be computed as owing to him in Zimbabwean dollars.
“It was therefore clear and apparent that the respondent (Mr Sithole) approached the court seeking an order of payment of US$17, 9 million. Respondent was fully aware that his claim for such an amount had already been rejected by the Labour Court. In a clear cut case of fraudulent misrepresentation the respondent concealed this essential and material fact,” Kingstons’ lawyers submitted.
Further, Mr Sithole had concealed that the matter had already been determined by the Labour Court and an amount had been agreed by the two parties.