This is an application for the review of a decision to retrench approved by the 1st respondent on the 30th of May 2005, in terms of section 12C of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01]. The grounds for review are that the 1st respondent approved the retrenchment of the applicants by the 2nd respondent, firstly, while the question as to who could lawfully retrench the applicants was sub judice, secondly, without having heard the applicants on the merits of the matter and, thirdly, by failing to incorporate the issue of motor vehicles in the terms of retrenchment. More
The applicant in this matter claims the sum of US$40,000 in terms of a loan agreement concluded with the respondent on 31 August 2010. The respondent was to repay the amount lent by way of four instalments of US$10,000 from September to December 2010. He has failed to do so despite several demands. The applicant seeks repayment of the full amount together with interest, collection commission and costs on a higher scale. More
The 2nd and 3rd applicants are registered legal practitioners who practice in partnership under the name Antonio & Dzvetero Legal Practitioners. This is an application brought in terms of section 27 (1) of the High Court Act [Chapter 7:06], as read with Order 33 of the High Court Rules, 1971 (the previous Rules), and the common law. In addition, the application relied on section 14 of the High Court Act, the Administrative Justice Act [Chapter 10:28], and the Constitution of Zimbabwe. The applicants cited the Executive Secretary of the Law Society in his official capacity as the official, vested by... More
On 22 January 2021 seeking the following provisional order:
“TERMS OF THE ORDER SOUGHT
That the respondents show cause why a final order should not be made in the following terms;
1. That the provisional order be and is hereby confirmed.
2. That the use of excessive force and assaulting applicant or any member of the public during enforcement of Covid-19 lockdown regulations by the respondents be and is hereby declared unconstitutional.
3. That the failure by the respondents to observe social distancing, sanitizing suspects before putting them in police holding cells, putting applicant or anyone in overcrowded holding cells... More
The appellant was convicted of one count of theft as defined in s 113 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act, [Cap 9:23] on his own plea of guilty on 8 July 2008. He was sentenced to 36 months imprisonment of which 6 months was suspended on condition of good behaviour. A further 6 months were suspended on condition that the appellant makes restitution in the sum of ZW$5,5 trillion by 31 December 2008 leaving an effective sentence of 24 months upon his compliance with the stated conditions. He appealed against both conviction and sentence. More
