1. On 11 January 2023, the High Court issued an order declaring the provisions of s 314 of the Urban Councils Act [Chapter 29:15], (“the Act”), inconsistent with the Constitution and therefore invalid. More
This is an appeal against the decision of the High Court (the ‘court a quo’) dated 20 August 2020. The court a quo dismissed the first appellant’s application for rescission of a judgment which had been granted in default. After hearing submissions from counsel the appeal was allowed with costs. The reasons for this decision are outlined hereunder. More
The appellant appeals against part of the judgment of the High Court sitting at Bulawayo that was handed down on 20 May 2021. The court a quo ordered the respondent to pay to the appellant delictual damages in the sum of US$ 66 789.80 in local currency converted at the parity rate of one-on-one as between the two currencies.
On 18 September 2009, the first respondent’s locomotive hit and damaged the first appellant’s horse and trailer, which were stuck at a railroad level crossing in Somabula. The appellants issued summons on 29 June 2010, claiming damages in the sum of... More
This is an appeal against the entire judgment of the High Court, sitting at Harare, handed down on 21 April 2021 wherein the court a quo granted a declarator in favour of the first and second respondents More
On 2 March 2022, the applicants noted an appeal to this Court under case number SCB 30/22 against the judgment of the Labour Court handed down on 23 July 2021. They were legally represented. Having been employed by the respondent on fixed-term contracts of lengths varying from four to seven years, the applicants sought to challenge the Labour Court’s decision which concluded that they had no basis for legitimate expectations of reemployment by the respondent. More
The respondent applied to the High Court for an interim interdict seeking the suspension of the first appellant’s cancellation of its licence. The application was granted. The appellants aggrieved by that decision appealed to this Court. More
In this application, the applicant seeks an order in the following terms:
“(a) The prosecution of applicant by the General Court Martial 02/13 for the offence of contravening paragraph 15 (2) (a) of the Defence Act [Chapter 11:02], that is, absence without leave which occurred in 2004 be and is hereby permanently stayed.
(b) First, second, third and fourth respondents, the one paying the others to be absolved, are to pay the costs of suit.”
[2] The application, which was opposed by the respondents, was heard before this court on 16 October 2013 and judgment reserved. For reasons that remain... More
2. The respondent is a company which engaged in mining activities. It also sometimes hires out its state-of-the-art equipment to other mining companies. The board of the company comprises three individuals being Ofer Sivan, Munyaradzi Gonyora and Gilad Shabtai. Gilad Shabtai is the board chairperson. Sometime in 2011 Ofer Sivan was appointed Director and from around 2015 he spearheaded the company as its Managing Director.
3. The appellants were employees of the respondent who, it is alleged, have since been suspended from employment.
4. At some stage Ofer Sivan allegedly misappropriated trust funds in excess of USD $1 500 000.00.... More
This is an appeal against the entire judgment of the High Court of Zimbabwe sitting at Gweru which found the appellants guilty of culpable homicide as defined in terms of s 49 of the Criminal Law Codification and Reform Act [Chapter 9:23] (the Act). More
This is an opposed application for review of taxation proceedings made in terms of Rule 56(2) as read with Rule 73 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2018 and Rule 72 of the High Court Rules, 2021. On 23 February 2022 after considering written submissions by the applicant and both written and oral submissions by the second respondent’s counsel Mr. Madya, I delivered an ex-tempore judgment dismissing the application with costs. The applicant elected not to appear physically but opted in terms of s 29(4) of the Supreme Court Act [Chapter 7:13], to file written submissions. He has requested for written... More
On 4 July 2017, the Supreme Court acting in terms of s 175(4) of the Constitution referred a constitutional matter to this Court. The essence of its order is to seek from this Court an answer to the question whether or not s 27 of the Public Order and Security Act [Chapter 7.11], (POSA) is constitutional. More
HLATSHWAYO JA:This is a chamber application for condonation for failing to note an appeal within the prescribed time limits and extension of time within which to note an appeal in terms of r 43 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2018 (the Rules). The applicants seek an order in the following terms:
1. The application for condonation for non-compliance with r 38 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2018 be and is hereby granted.
2. The application for extension of time within which to file and serve a notice of appeal in terms of the rules be and is hereby granted.
3.... More
1. This is a chamber application in which the applicant seeks condonation for failure to comply with Rule 38 (1) (a) of the Supreme Court Rules, 2018 and for extension of time within which to file and serve a notice of appeal. The application is opposed. More
1. This is an appeal against the decision of the Labour Court (‘the court a quo’) wherein the court dismissed the appellants’ application for review after finding that the appellants had elected the wrong procedure in proceeding by way of review as opposed to an appeal. After hearing submissions by both counsel, the court dismissed the appeal and indicated that the reasons for the decision would be furnished in due course. The reasons follow hereunder. More
This an appeal against the whole judgment of the High Court (the court a quo) sitting at Harare dated 1 March 2022, setting aside the second appellant’s decision to deny the respondent leave to sue the first appellant and granting the respondent leave in terms of s 6 (b) of the Reconstruction of State Indebted Insolvent Companies Act [chapter 24:27] (the Act) to institute proceedings against the first appellant for damages for breach of contract. More
