The applicant is a company that carries mining operations in Zimbabwe. The first respondent is an administrative authority established in terms of the Revenue Act [Chapter 23:11] tasked with the administration and collection of revenues due in terms of various statutes that it is obliged to enforce. Pursuant to its duties the first respondent issued garnishee notices against the applicant’s banker, Stanbic Bank Zimbabwe which is cited as the second respondent in this matter. One garnishee notice is for the remittal of the sum of USD 24,076,521.04 from the applicant’s account to the first respondent. More
The respondent was an employee of the appellant and she resigned by giving 7 days’ notice instead of the requisite 3 months’ notice as per s 12 (4) (a) of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01]. She proceeded to do a handover takeover procedure. The employer then demanded payment of $1 402-25 being amount due to it in lieu of the 3 months’ notice which respondent failed to serve. The respondent admitted liability by way of an email which appears on record as exh 5, she again reiterated her willingness to pay in another email dated 10 June 2014 which stands... More
The applicant was the defendant in case no. HC 3982/12 and the respondent was the plaintiff. Case no. HC 3982/12 is a summons or action matter in which the applicant was sued for various sums of money in damages allegedly caused by the applicant to the respondent’s property which he rented in terms of a lease agreement. In addition to damages, the applicant was also sued for outstanding rentals and bills, interest and costs on the higher scale of legal practitioner and client. The total sum claimed from the applicant was put at US$12 122.17. My own addition of the... More
The second applicant is the managing director of the first respondent. The first respondent is a duly incorporated company in terms of the laws of Zimbabwe.
The first respondent is also a duly incorporated company in terms of the Laws of Zimbabwe. More
