: The revenue authority still has to find ways to endear itself to the public. Throughout the times, the tax collector has been called many unsavory names. In the trial before me, the defendant was called a day light robber. More
The Applicant’s case was that on the date his application for reinstatement of his application was dismissed, he together with his legal practitioner of choice did not attend court. The reason for non-attendance was that his legal practitioner a Mr Chikono had misdiarised the court date and advised his client, now the Applicant that the case was to be heard on 28 June 2021 instead of 22 June 2021.
Applicant visited the court on 26 June 2021 to check if the matter was on the court roll for 28 June 2021. He could not locate his name which led him... More
This matter has trudged a long and tortuous journey. The applicants are former employees of the respondent who were charged with misconduct and dismissed in 2005 following disciplinary processes. The applicants challenged their dismissal right up to the Labour Court in case number LC/H.15/06. The Labour Court found for the applicants on 5 July, 2007 and ordered their reinstatement, alternatively, payment of damages in lieu of reinstatement. The respondent opted to pay damages, caused their quantification on 10 December 2008 equivalent to 5 years salary using the cut off date of 5 July, 2007 and tendered them to the applicants. More
Applicants aver that labouring under a number of “boo-boos”, the court issued a judgment in their absence in a matter affecting their interests. In that respect, applicants have moved the court to set aside that 2 February 2020 judgment (per PHIRI J), in terms of rule 29 of the High Court Rules 2021 (the successor to r 449 in the old High Court Rules 1971). This rule permits a party to approach the court in circumstances where a judgment was erroneously granted, in its absence and in a matter affecting that party`s interests. Determination of this matter hinges in the... More
This matter was filed as an urgent chamber application on 29 October 2021. The applicant was seeking the following provisional order:
TERMS OF FINAL ORDER SOUGHT
That you show cause to this Honourable Court why a final order should not be made in the following terms:
1. The applicant’s possession, use and occupation of Plot No.9 Carrisbrooke Farm, Seke District, Mashonaland East, be and is hereby declared to be lawful.
2. The first respondent and all those acting through her, be and are hereby barred from interfering, occupation or use in any manner of Plot No.9 Carrisbrooke Farm, Seke District,... More
