Electronic Court judgements

Browse Court Judgements by court

This is an application for setting aside of an arbitral award in terms of Article 34 (2) (b) (ii) of the Model Law as set out in the Arbitration Act [Chapter 7:15]. The applicant premises its application on the ground that the arbitral award offends against the public policy of Zimbabwe. The first respondent opposed the setting aside of the arbitral award on the basis that the award is not contrary to the public policy of Zimbabwe. He argued that the amount owing in the sum of US$106 960. 01 ought to be paid at the rate of US$1: ZWL$1... More

1. The plaintiff issued summons for civil imprisonment against the defendant for failure to pay a debt in terms of an order granted against him. More

This is a composite judgment in respect of an arbitral award. For the sake of consistency, the parties will be cited as they appear in HCHC 328/23 which is the application for the setting aside of the award. HCHC 188/23 is an application for the registration of the award. It goes without saying that the decision in HCHC 328/23 will influence that in HCHC 188/23. Essentially the same arguments for and against registration have been advanced by the parties depending on whether it’s the application for registration or for setting aside. More

The applicant is a fund established under the Manpower Planning Development Act (the Act). Its principal mandate is the development of skilled manpower in Zimbabwe. The respondent is a former employee of the applicant who was dismissed from employment for disciplinary reasons. As part of his conditions of service during the tenure of his employment with the applicant, the respondent had been issued with some assets which he did not surrender upon termination of employment. It is those assets that the applicant wishes to recover from the respondent through this application. More

[1] Applicants seek condonation for taking a special plea out of time. Mr. Jingini Raphael Tsivama, applicants` legal practitioner, deposed to the founding affidavit.Similarly, Mr Chenjerai Daitai, the legal practitioner representing first respondentreciprocated with the answering affidavit. Mr. Tsivama also drew up the applicants` heads of argument. Whilst no issue was raised by either side regarding the source of these depositions, I will briefly comment, in the course of this judgment, on their peculiar relevance to the disposal of the matter at hand. [ 2] This application was opposed by first respondent. Third respondent indicated that it was not opposed... More