The facts of this matter are well set out in the judgment of my sister MUREMBA J in case number HH 269/17.
It is therefore unnecessary for me to repeat the same facts. I must point out, however, that MUREMBA J did not decide this same application on the merits. Instead, she dismissed the application on the procedural ground that the relief should have been sought through an application for review, rather than a court application for a declaratory order.
On appeal, the judgment in case number HH 269/17 was set aside in its entirety. The Supreme Court remitted the... More
The applicant has been in the business of providing internet services since 1997. It is suing the first respondent (POTRAZ) as a body corporate and authority responsible for the licensing and regulation of telecommunication service providers in terms of s 30 of the Postal and Telecommunications Act [Chapter 12:05]. More
The respondent was employed by the applicant as Head Administration: As part of his employment benefits he was allocated a motor vehicle for his duties namely a Toyota Hilux registration number ABD 8617 (the vehicle). On 3 June 2011, the applicant terminated the respondent’s contract of employment following disciplinary proceedings in terms of the National Code of Conduct. When the respondent was on suspension he was allowed to use the vehicle. The respondent challenged the dismissal by noting an appeal to the Labour Relations Office. The matter is still pending. The applicant then instituted the present proceedings seeking to recover... More
On March 2008 the plaintiff and the defendant entered into a lease agreement. The plaintiff leased to the defendant 584 square metres of the 1st floor of Runhare House, Harare. The plaintiff and Communications and Allied Industries Pension Fund are owners of stand number 14940 Salisbury Township, which houses the leased premises (ie 584 square metres of the 1st floor of Runhare House, Harare.) Initially the defendant was paying rent in Zimbabwe dollars. The position changed in February 2009 when a multi-currency regime was ushered in by Government. More
The plaintiff issued summons against the defendant claiming payment of US$ 23 000.00 (Twenty three thousand dollars) as damages or replacement value of the plaintiff’s vehicle. The defendant in his plea to the claim denied liability on the basis that he never dealt with the plaintiff but with the plaintiff’s wife one Violet Temba. He said he received the said vehicle from the plaintiff’s wife who is the defendant’s sister. By arrangement with his sister he paid to ZIMRA duty for the said vehicle and his sister failed to refund him an amount of $5 000.00 that he had paid... More
