The applicant approached this court on a certificate of urgency, seeking leave to execute on the “ruling” of the second respondent dated 12 February 2008 in which he was granted a certificate for the ejectment of the first respondent from certain premises in Hatfield Harare. More
n this action the plaintiff makes the following claim:-
“(a)Payment in the sum of US$4500-00 (Four Thousand and Five hundred United States Dollars Only) being damages for shock, pain and suffering, unlawful arrest and detention of the plaintiff perpetrated by third, fourth and fifth defendants, who were all members of the Zimbabwe Republic Police (ZRP) acting within the course and scope of their employment with the first and second defendants thus rendering the latter vicariously liable for their employees’ actions. The third, fourth and fifth defendants are liable in their personal capacities.” More
The above appeals are all centred on the decision of the respondent refusing to allow as permissible deductions in terms of section 15(2)(gg) of the Income Tax Act [Cap 23:06] certain expenditures incurred by the appellants. To the extent that there are minimal disputes of fact and to the extent that the issues of law raised are the same, it was agreed to consolidate the matters and to issue a single judgment covering all the appellants. More
On 3 February 2021, the applicants filed an urgent chamber application seeking to interdict the enforcement of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) (Standard Scale of Fines) Notice 2021 (“SI 25/21”), which was published in an extraordinary Government Gazette on 25 January 2021. Perhaps, it is important to begin by giving the context in which this application was filed and came before me. It is common cause that, on 28 March 2020, the Public Health (Covid-19 Prevention, Containment and Treatment and Treatment) Regulations 2020, Statutory Instrument 77 of 2020 (“SI 77/20”) came in force. This piece of legislation contained provisions... More
Litigants in this country are fast developing this unacceptable and indeed detestful habit of trifling with courts of law and in the process succeeding in bringing the courts to disrepute. There is no other way of describing the opposition to this application for registration of an arbitral award made against the respondent by D Mudzengi, an arbitrator, on 7 June 2011 than to say that it is trifling with the court in a regrettable manner.
The applicant was employed by the respondent, and from the papers before, me she is still so employed, as a project co-ordinator/manager. The respondent is... More
