GUVAVA JA:
1. This is an appeal against the whole judgment of the High Court (court a quo) sitting at Harare dated 11 July 2019. The courta quodismissed the appellant’s application seeking a review of the first respondent’s decision to call three new witnesses during a criminal trial.
2. The delay in handing down this judgment is regretted but was due to circumstances beyond my control.
3. The facts of the matter which are pertinent to this appeal may be summarized as follows. The appellants were jointly chargedwith perjury and fraud as defined in ss 183(1) and 136 of the... More
After hearing the parties on 2 March 2017 this Court pronounced:
“It is the unanimous view of this Court that the appeal is devoid of merit and ought to fail. Accordingly, it is ordered as follows:
The appeal is dismissed with costs.
Reasons for this judgment will follow in due course.” More
This is an appeal against the decision of the Labour Court which in turn upheld the decision of the arbitrator dismissing the appellants’ claim for reinstatement on account of unlawful dismissal. At the close of argument, we unanimously dismissed the appeal with no order as to costs. Upon issuance of the order, we indicated that our reasons for the order were to follow in due course. More
The first respondent is a church organization whereas the appellant is a member of a housing cooperative known as Joseph Musika Housing Cooperative. Although the Housing Cooperative was a party to the proceedings in the court a quo, it has not appealed against the court’sjudgment against it. The second respondent is a government Minister and owner of the state land in dispute. The disputed piece of land is commonly known as Stand Number 16549 Hatcliff Harare (the stand). More
The appellants are appealing against the entire judgment of the High Court delivered on 24 May 2017 under judgment number HH329/17. Thatjudgment granted the respondent a provisional spoliation order in the following terms:
“TERMS OF THE FINAL ORDER SOUGHT
That you show cause to this Honourable Court why a final order should not be made in the following terms:
1. The first, second and thirdrespondents be and are hereby interdicted from interfering in any manner with the applicant’s businessoperations at the tuck shop situated at Gateway Primary School. Including but not limited to barring her potential customers from buying from... More
