D. Mupwanyiwa The plaintiff issued summons against the defendant on 2 March 2011. In its declaration, the plaintiff averred that the parties entered into a swop agreement in 2009, in terms of which the plaintiff surrendered to the defendant a Mazda B22 vehicle, registration number AAH 5588, and the defendant undertook to use the parts of its Nissan SE vehicle to reconstruct the plaintiff’s Nissan SE motor vehicle registration number AAH 5587. More
The applicant in the case seemed to have employed Winston Churchill’s philosophy that when you have an important point to make, you do not try to be subtle. Instead, you must use a pile driver to hit the point home. You then return to hit it again with a tremendous whack. The applicant took no prisoners in challenging the respondents’ decision on the grounds of gross unreasonableness, irrationality and absence of reasons. In the midst of it, the interpretation of what in the automotive industry is meant by the term semi knocked down kits, is where the dispute between the... More
This is application for a declaratory order declaring the ruling by the Arbitrator null and void for want of compliance with s 89(2)(c) iii) of the Labour Act [Cap 28:01], which requires that an award for reinstatement must have as an alternative specific amount of damages to be awarded to the employee concerned. More
The following facts are common cause. The plaintiff is the owner of business premises situated at defendant No 18 Shepperton Road, Graniteside, Harare. On 16 December, 2002, the company entered into a lease agreement with the defendant whereby the defendant leased from the plaintiff a portion of the business premises. The lease agreement was renewable annually. In 2005, the parties agreed to renew the agreement every four months and would agree on the monthly rental for the four months. In December 2005 the rental was $40 million. It was a term of the agreement that rent was payable on or... More
This is an application for the confirmation of a provisional order granted on an urgent basis on 27 July 2020 wherein the respondent and anyone in its employ was interdicted from extracting mineral resources at applicant’s mining claim registered as 40826BM. The final order sought herein is that respondent and anyone in its employ should allow applicant access to its mining site, hand over the same to applicant and not interfere with applicant’s claim and activities on the said claim. More
