The applicant is seeking an order in the following terms:
“1. The 1st and 2nd respondents’ failure to furnish the applicant with reasons for their decisions is unlawful and wrongful.
2. The applicant’s discharge from the police service is accordingly set aside.
3. The respondents are ordered to reinstate the applicant into the police service forthwith.
4. The respondents are ordered to pay costs of suit on a punitive scale.” More
This judgment is to be read together with the judgment HH 417-22 which was delivered on 28 June 2022 dealing with a point in limine raised by the respondent to effect that the application ought to be dismissed because there are material disputes of fact not capable of resolution. In that judgment, I set out the facts on which this application is based. It was necessary to do so because the court could not have properly determined whether the applicant’s case was comprised of irresolvable material disputes of facts without setting out the facts of the case and considering them.... More
On the turn, I granted an order finding the respondents in contempt of an order of this court and committed the second and third respondents to prison and there to be held until the order of this court, granted on 13 February 2008 is complied with or set aside, whichever occurs sooner. The committal of the second and third respondents was suspended for four days from the date of service of the order upon each of them to give them an opportunity to purge their contempt. More
This is an appeal against the decision of the Magistrate Court sitting at Harare in which the court dismissed the appellant’s claim and upheld the counter-claim by the respondent.
The facts of the case are that on 11 June 2014 the appellant and the respondent entered into an agreement of sale of land. This was during the multi-currency era. The property was sold in United States dollars. The agreed purchase price was US$60 000.00. The agreed terms of payment were that the respondent was to pay the appellant a deposit of US$18 000.00 followed by monthly instalments of US$691.00 for... More
The bare bones of the matter are these: The respondent issued summons against the applicant on 30 November, 2010 in case number HC 8728/10, claiming $6 369-35. The applicant entered appearance to defend via its erstwhile legal practitioners Messrs Bruce Mujeyi Manokore Attorneys. The applicant through its then legal practitioners was served with a notice to plead on 26 January, 2011. The applicant did not enter a plea and the respondent applied for default judgment on 2 March, 2011. The order was duly granted on 31 March, 2011 and issued on 28 April, 2011. More
