The plaintiff instituted action proceedings against the defendant claiming the following:
‘(i) a declaration that defendant breached the bonding agreement;
(ii) payment in the sum of US$12 614-98 being money owed to the plaintiff due to a breach of the agreement;
(iii) interest on the amount of US$12 814-98, calculated at the prescribed rate of interest from 31 October 2015, being the date of resignation. More
Before me is an application by the Zimbabwe National Road Administration (ZINARA) for rei vindication in respect of a Toyota Hilux (double cab) motor vehicle, registration number AEC 7539 (“the vehicle”). The application is opposed. The factual background giving rise to the dispute is that in May 2010, the applicant and the respondent entered into a contract of employment. The respondent was employed as IT Manager of the applicant. The contract appears in the record on pages 8-10 marked Annexure “B”. Clause 6(b) of this contract reads as follows: More
Before me is an application by the Zimbabwe National Road Administration (ZINARA) for rei vindication in respect of a Toyota Hilux (double cab) motor vehicle, registration number AEC 6465 (“the vehicle”). The application is opposed. The factual background giving rise to the dispute is as follows: sometime in March 2010, the applicant and the respondent entered into a contract of employment. The respondent was employed as regional engineer of the applicant, as evidenced by the contract marked Annexure “B”, which appears on pp 8-10 of the record. Clause 6 (b) of this contract reads as follows: More
On 16 December 2015, the plaintiff issued summons against Forester (with one v ) Estates Private Limited claiming payment of the sum of US71 548-00 in respect of water sold, supplied and delivered to the defendant by it in terms of an agreement entered into between the parties. More
The applicant in this case is Zimbabwe National Water Authority (ZINWA), a body corporate established in terms of the Zimbabwe National Water Authority Act [Chapter 20:25]. The respondent is Jutstein Mapanzure. He was formerly employed by the applicant. He rose through the applicant’s organogram. . Sometime during their employment relationship, the respondent misconducted himself. The applicant said it then decided to prefer misconduct charges against him. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated but midstream through the process the respondent thought he had seen reason and through his erstwhile legal representatives found it prudent to ditch the confrontation approach. He found it wiser... More
