This is an appeal against the whole judgment of the High Court (the court a quo)
in which it dismissed the appellant`s urgent chamber application wherein she sought an interdict to prevent the first respondent (the President) from establishing a Tribunal in terms of s 187 (3) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe, 2013 (‘the Constitution’). More
[1] This is an appeal against the whole judgment of the High Court (the ‘court a quo’) wherein the court granted a provisional order in an urgent chamber application made by the respondent. The court a quo ordered that a motor vehicle in the possession of the appellant be placed under judicial attachment pending the return day of the provisional order. The court further interdicted both the appellant and the respondent from using the motor vehicle pending the determination of the matter. More
The appellant was formerly employed by the respondent as an operations manager. Together with a colleague, he was charged with contravening s 4(d) of the Labour (National Employment Code of Conduct) Regulations 2006, S.I. 15 /06 (“the National Code of Conduct”). The allegations against the appellant and his colleague were that on divers occasions between January 2006 and October 2006, they had presented to the City Council of Harare fraudulent quotations in respect of a project for the purchase of computers in the absence of council approval. They were also charged with two counts of contravening s 4(f) of the... More
This is an appeal against the judgement of the High Court dismissing an application for the rescission of a default judgment granted in favour of the first respondent against the second respondent in Case No. HC 9554/16. The application was brought in terms of r 449(1)(a) of the High Court Rules 1971. The applicant in that matter sought the rescission of the default judgement as well as his joinder in the main proceedings. More
The appellant and the first respondent have engaged in a litany of disputes in the court a quo, all related to their respective entitlements to the mining claims that they operate on. The two mining claims are situate in Insiza District, Matebeleland South and are adjacent to each other. The appellant is the holder of mining claims known as Tigress, while the first respondent has been conducting mining operations on claims known as Lion West 25. More
