The applicant, who has been a self-representing litigant since the inception of the labour dispute between the parties eleven years ago, was employed by the second respondent, a company under corporate rescue under the stewardship of the first respondent as its corporate rescue practitioner, as a branch accountant on 1 July 2012. More
This is an appeal against the whole judgment of the High Court (court a quo), sitting at Bulawayo which convicted the appellant of murder in contravention of s 47(1)(a) of the Criminal Law [Codification and Reform] Act [Chapter 9:23](the Code). Subsequent to the conviction, the appellant was sentenced to death. This is an automatic appeal against both the conviction and sentence in terms of s 44(2) (c) of the High Court Act [Chapter 7:06]. At the close of submissions, we dismissed the appeal and indicated that our reasons would be availed in due course. I set out hereunder the reasons... More
The appellant brings an appeal against the judgment of the High Court (the court a quo) handed down on 21 July 2021. The reasons for judgment were delivered on 28 September 2021 under judgment number HH 533-21. The order struck off the appellant’s application to be declared the lawful lessee and occupier of Duncombe Service Station (the service station) situate at Duncombe Farm, Mazowe District in Mashonaland Central Province. The appellant further sought the eviction of the first and second respondents from the premises together with all those claiming the right of occupation and use through them. More
This is an appeal against the whole judgment of the High Court handed down on 17 October 2022, dismissing the appellant’s appeal against her conviction and sentence, on a charge of theft of trust property, by the Regional Magistrate, Eastern Region (Anti-Corruption Court) on 8 June 2022. More
The history of the matter has to be put into perspective. The appellant is cited in his official capacity as a liquidator of the first respondent. The first respondent is a 50 percent shareholder in the company, which is under final liquidation. The second respondent holds the other 50 percent share in the Company. The appellant was appointed interim liquidator of the company on 5 June 2019. On 7 August 2019, he was appointed the final liquidator. More
