On 1 September 2010 the respondent was employed as the resident director of the appellant in terms of an executive employment agreement. In terms of the contract the respondent, as representative of the Board of Directors, was responsible for the supervision and direction of policy on a daily basis. In addition, he was mandated to represent the company in relation to the appellant’s stakeholders. Some of his specified duties, in terms of the employment agreement, were to disseminate Board decisions to management, overseeing the implementation of Board decisions and providing oversight over operational and administrative issues that impinged on policy... More
The background facts are largely common cause. The appellant is a transporter of note while the respondent is a fuel monger. They have a long standing business relationship whereby the respondent has been supplying the appellant with bulk fuel over the years. On 1 November 2018, the parties entered into a sale agreement in terms of which the respondent sold and the appellant purchased 150 000 litres of diesel. More
Following a successful appeal to this Court against a judgment of the High Court ordering the eviction of the appellant from house number 484 Jakaranda Drive Victoria Falls (the house) when it had not heard the merits of the dispute but only points in limine, this Court handed down judgment which reads in part as follows:
“1. …
2. The appeal succeeds with each party bearing its own costs.
3. The judgment of the court a quo on the merits is set aside.
4. The matter be and is hereby remitted to the court a quo for determination of the... More
In this matter Counsel for the first respondent raised a point in limine to the effect that the appellant having been barred in the court a quo for failure to file his heads of argument, had no right of audience before this court. More
Both matters herein emanate from two separate election petitions lodged before the High Court, qua Electoral Court, in Case No. EC 21/18 and Case No. EC 37/18. They were consolidated and heard together and determined in a single composite judgment (No. ECH 2-19) by the court a quo. Both appeals were similarly consolidated and heard together in this Court. At the end of that hearing, following submissions by counsel on two preliminary issues, the Court made the following order:
1. Judgment in relation to both preliminary points:
(i) whether both appeals are properly before this Court in view of the... More
