The present feud has its genesis in matters of employment law. The first and second respondents are the third respondent’s managing director and human resources manager respectively. The Applicant was employed by the third respondent as a manager. In 1995 he was dismissed from employment by the respondents. On 21 December, 1999, the Employment Council for the Banking Undertaking which heard the applicant’s appeal, resolved that an incorrect Code of Conduct had been used and ordered that the applicant “should be reinstated with full pay and benefits from the date of his initial discharge, to the date that the hearing... More
This is again another application which raises the issue of guardianship rights and the circumstances under which a parent may be divested of such rights. The application was initially allocated to CHATUKUTA J who raised a query with the legal practitioner on 28 December 2010. When this query was not responded to, she then referred the matter to the Family Court Division of the High Court on 18 October 2011. On receipt of the chamber application I then requested the Registrar to invite the applicant’s legal practitioner to come in so that I could discuss his application with him as... More
By way of background to this chamber application it is common cause that the applicant was hired by the second applicant to transport second respondent’s goods from South Africa to Zimbabwe via the Beitbridge border post. Applicant is a company registered according to the laws of South Africa whose address of service is care of 28 Frank Johnson Avenue Eastlea Harare which is the address of its legal practitioners. It is the owner of a Nissan Diesel G300 truck Horse Registration No JB44KVGP with two trailers with the following registration details trailer 2 H2 49BPGP which truck second respondent hired... More
The applicant was convicted by a magistrates court sitting at Mbare on a charge of contravening section 113 (1) (a) and (b) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act Chapter 9.23. He took property belonging to the complainant intending to permanently deprive the complainant of her control, possession and ownership of such property or in such circumstances that he realized that there was real risk that the complainant would be permanently deprived of her control, possession and ownership of the property. He was sentenced to 36 months imprisonment with 12 months suspended on conditions of good behaviour and restitution. More
The appellant was tried and found guilty of contravening s 189 (1) (a) as read with s 65 (1) (a) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform Act) [Chapter 9:23] attempted rape. He was sentenced to 36 months imprisonment of which 6 months imprisonment were suspended on conditions of good behaviour. More
