The applicants raised certain claims against their employer which is the respondent in casu. They claimed payment of the following allowances: medical, housing, utilities, shift and underground, cafeteria, production bonuses and food hampers. They took their case to arbitration. The learned arbitrator heard submissions from the applicants and the respondent which the applicants cited as Freda Rebecca Gold Mine. He entered judgment for the applicants. The arbitral award as quantified came to a staggering figure of $1 494 450.64. More
The plaintiff and defendant were married in terms of the Marriages Act, [Cap 5:11] on 8 December 2000. They had commenced living together as husband and wife in the year 1998 on a date they were not agreed on. On 15 October 1998 they had married under customary law.
Their marriage was not blessed with any child.
In October 2008 plaintiff brought this action seeking a decree of divorce and an equitable distribution of assets she alleged the couple had accumulated. She alleged that the marriage had irretrievably broken down to an extent whereby there was no reasonable prospect of... More
Before us is an appeal and cross appeal. The brief background facts which are common cause are that the appellant has been leasing the respondent’s premises, namely shops 10 and 11 Kensington Centre in Harare (the premises), for the past twenty-five plus years. Throughout this relationship, the parties would conclude periodic leases and the last such agreement was executed on 12 September 2019. It would run from 1 September 2019 to 31 December 2020. In terms of clause 3, the rentals were payable in Zimbabwean dollars at the Stanbic Bank midrate for the day, charged per month. For the period... More
The applicant sought a provisional order which I granted as amended on 3 May 2021. Reasons for my order have been requested in writing for the purposes of an appeal, which has since been lodged. The provisional order sought was to effectively grant the applicant unrestricted access to the unoccupied portion of Modzone Farm. Below are the reasons behind my decision. More
The principle which the court laid in Smith v Hughes, RL6 QBD 597 te 607 holds true today just as it did at the time that it was pronounced. It neatly fits into the circumstances of this application. It reads:
“If, whatever a man’s real intention may be, he so conducts himself that a reasonable man would believe that he was assenting to the terms proposed by the other party, and that other party upon that belief enters into the contract with him, the man thus conducting himself would equally be bound as if he had intended to agree to... More
