Welcome to Midlands State University Library

Court Judgements



Browse Court Judgements by court
JEFFERSON BANDA AND CHRISTINE MUPATSI AND GILBERT KARIKUIMBA AND MICHAEL RUPANGA AND JOSEPH TAKAVINGOFA AND BRIDGETTE DULANI AND MICHAEL GEZI AND JACKY HETYA AND LANGTON NYEVE AND CONRAD MUZVURA VERSUS WALTER TAKANHIKE AND MOSES GWAUNZA AND KWADZANAYI CHIKAZHE AND UPENYU CHITUMBA AND ADAM NHAMO AND STEMBILE CHIKUMBA AND CEPHAS RANGANAI AND ALICE MHANGA AND AMON MUTENGU AND FABION CHIDZUDZU AND JOU CHITEURE AND JOSEPH RUZANI AND JEMIAS CHINDIYA AND REJOICE DHAVE AND DANIEL PHIRI AND ELLIOT HUVADZE AND EFFORT MUNYANYI AND FORTUNATE TAKAIDZA AND MUCHENA CAROLINE AND EFIAS CHIHLENGWE AND CAROLINE MURIDZERI AND JIMMY CHATIMA AND NYASHA NCUBE AND CUMPAS MATAMBURA AND TRYMORE CHIDENDE AND MARTIN GWATIDZO AND PERPETUAL MASHIRI AND SIKHUMBUDZO GUMBI AND CECILIA CHIPEMBA AND EDSON TIDIGU AND SIKHUMBUDZO NDUNA AND HERBERT MPOFU AND ELIOT BVUNDUKAI AND NYASHA KACHIKAWO AND CAIN NCUBE AND KELVIN CHIDZIKWE AND JOEL MURANDA AND CHRISTOPHER HAPAMIRE AND LESLY MUNYANYI AND RAYMOND MUTUNHIRA AND LANCELOT SHUMBA AND JACOB HOMWE AND MAVIS KATURUZA AND JONAH MUSHONGA AND NKULULEKO TSHUMA AND THOKOZANI NCUBE AND RICHARD CHIWIRE AND COMMERCIAL WORKERS UNION OF ZIMBABWE (2022-12-07)
At the center of the parties’ dispute is control of Commercial Workers Union of Zimbabwe (“the union”). This is a registered trade union which represents the interests of workers in the commercial and allied sectors in Zimbabwe. More

The appellant was convicted of five counts of robbery as defined in s 126 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23]. He was acquitted on one count which was count 3. Counts 1 and 2 were taken as one for sentence, and 12 years imprisonment was imposed. For counts 4, 5 and 6 the appellant was sentenced to 8 years imprisonment on each count. The total for all the counts was therefore 36 years imprisonment. The learned magistrate suspended 5 years imprisonment on condition of good behaviour, and a further 3 years imprisonment on condition of restitution.... More

This is an opposed application in which the applicant seeks to have a decision of the arbitrator set aside in terms of s 34 of the UNCITRAL Model Law, on the grounds that it offends public policy. More

The parties concluded a license agreement as Licensor and Licensee which was effective from 1 August, 2016. On 23 August, 2016, after the applicant failed to secure funding, the parties concluded an Interim Funding Arrangement. More

On 10October 2014, the applicant filed an application in this court seeking the following relief: “IT IS ORDERED THAT: 1. That the findings and recommendations of the Board of Inquiry and the discharge notice are hereby null and void 2. The applicant be and is hereby reinstated without loss of salary and benefits from the date on which they withheld 3. The costs be borne by the Respondents.” More