This is an appeal against the decision of the Legal Practitioners’ Disciplinary Tribunal handed down on 6 March 2019, ordering that the appellant’s name be deleted from the register of Legal Practitioners, Notaries’ Public and Conveyancers. On the day following the hearing in this matter, the court issued an order dismissing the appeal with costs, and indicated that the reasons for the order would follow in due course More
The appellant (Technoimpex JSC) is a company duly incorporated in terms of the laws of Bulgaria. It is the registered owner of an immovable property in Harare, Zimbabwe known as Lot 12 of Lot 15 Block C of Avondale, commonly refered to as Bath Mansions Flats at number 32 Bath Road, Avondale, Harare held under Deed of Transfer number 1657/89. In case number HC 6784/19 it applied for an interdict against the first to the third respondents who it alleged wanted to steal its property. The High Court granted the application. In arriving at the decision to grant the provisional... More
The appellant (Tel-One) is a company registered in terms of the laws of Zimbabwe. The respondent Capitol Insurance Brokers (Pvt) Ltd (Capitol) is an insurance broker, company also registered in terms of the laws of Zimbabwe. More
This is an appeal against part of the judgment of the High Court Harare, handed down on 8 August 2018. The part appealed against dismissed the appellant’s application for:
a) an order declaring the Postal and Telecommunications (Licence Registration and Certification) (Amendment) Regulations, 2013 (No. 6) (“S.I 122/ 2013”), to be: -
(i) ultra vires the Postal Telecommunications Act [Chapter 12:05] “the Act”, and therefore,
(iii) null and void; and,
b) an order compelling the first respondent to comply with ‘its statutory obligations’ in relation to the enforcement of s 37(5) of the Act regarding publication of licenses by the... More
The facts of this case are common cause. The applicant was employed by the respondent as a laboratory technician quality control analyst in Bulawayo. In July 2015, the respondent introduced an incentive scheme in terms of which employees were to be paid a monetary incentive twice a year, in July and December. The respondent made it clear in its scheme that the incentives were non-contractual and non-obligatory. The respondent intended to motivate its employees in the performance of their duties. One of the conditions of the incentive scheme was that it was not payable to employees with misconduct records or... More
