The plaintiffs’ herein issued summons seeking the following relief.
“1. An order declaring that the 1st Plaintiff, led by the 2nd to 4th Plaintiffs, is the legitimate Medical Professional and Allied Workers Union of Zimbabwe registered as such in terms of the Labour Act (Chap 28:01).
2. An order declaring that the 1st Plaintiff, led by the 2nd to 4th Plaintiffs, is the Medical Professional and Allied Workers Union of Zimbabwe referred to in section 2 of the Constitution of the 4th Defendant.
3. An order interdicting the 1st to the 3rd Defendants from purporting to be leading the 1st... More
This matter is concerned with a leadership wrangle in the first applicant. The leadership wrangle pits two factions seeking control of the first applicant against each other. The leading characters are the second to fourth applicants and the first, second, fifth and sixth respondents, respectively. These are either current or former members of the National Council of the first applicant. The first applicant is a trade union which represents the interests of employees in the medical and allied industry. It is duly registered in terms of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01] (the Act). The third respondent is an employment council... More
This is an appeal against the whole judgment of the Magistrates Court (Civil Court) sitting at Harare in case number HRE- CCG 1424/23 which was handed down on 30 January 2024.
The judgment appealed against dismissed an application for rescission of judgment lodged by the now appellant with costs on the ordinary scale. More
MUSITHU J: This application for review was filed in terms of s 27 of the High Court Act [Chapter 7:06]. The applicant seeks the setting aside of the decision of the second respondent which directed the third respondent to advertise and conduct a sale in execution of the applicant’s cotton wool processing plant (the plant) and the subsequent sale in execution held on 29 December 2023. The applicant averred that the procedure leading to the sale of its plant was grossly irregular as it was done in contravention of the provisions of the Magistrates Court (Civil) Rules, 2018 (the rules). More
MUZOFA J: The plaintiff’s claim is for damages in the sum of $35 442.00 for loss of goods and $140-00 for costs incurred in the recovery of goods. The plaintiff is in the business of distribution of fast moving goods. It transports such goods by trucks which are predominantly hired from other companies. According to plaintiff it entered into an oral agreement with the first defendant through the fourth defendant its employee for the provision of trucks. In terms of the agreement the first defendant was to transport 1 260 boxes of cooking oil from plaintiff’s warehouse in Mutare to... More
