In a divorce action, which the applicant was granted in 2015 in default by the respondent, she was allocated property known as a certain piece of land situate in the District of Salisbury, called the remaining extent of Lot 361 Highlands Estate of Welmoed, measuring 5202 m2, registration number 2476/1996. It is commonly known as 18 Knightsbridge Road, Highlands, Harare. That property was registered in her then husband’s name, George Musanhu, the first respondent herein. The order was straightforward. Within forty-eight hours of the service of the order, he was supposed to have signed over to her the necessary papers... More
The applicant and first respondent lived together in a marital union. During the blissful days of their union they formed a company namely CRISTED (PRIVATE) LIMITED (the second respondent) each one had a 50 percent share in second respondent. An immovable property was acquired and registered in Second respondent’s name. This immovable property is the only asset of the company. After several years of cohabiting the marital relationship began experiencing problems which culminated in applicant moving out of the house. Later first respondent moved out as well leaving Second respondent’s tenants in occupation. The relationship between applicant and first respondent... More
The background facts she gave were that in January 2013 she together with the first and second respondents entered into a verbal agreement wherein they agreed to obtain a loan facility for $15 000 from the Agricultural Bankof Zimbabwe. She said in terms of the oral agreement, the loan was to be shared equally among the parties. She said repayment of the loan was to be on a pro rata basis. She said the first respondent agreed to bind himself as a co-signatory to the loan amount as security for a proper and equivalent distribution of the loan proceeds between... More
On 12 October 2015, the first respondent declined jurisdiction to quantify the appellant’s retrenchment package upon the termination of his employment with the second respondent. Aggrieved by the decision, the appellant brought a review application before the Labour Court, seeking among other relief, to have the first respondent’s decision set aside. He was unsuccessful. This is an appeal against the entire judgment of the Labour Court handed down on 4 November 2016, dismissing with costs, the application for review. More
This is an application for review of the determination by the Retrenchment Board dated 13 October 2015. The Retrenchment Board in its determination stated that
“Kindly be advised that the Retrenchment Board has no jurisdiction over disputes arising from terms and conditions of employment.
Please refer the matter to a labour officer as per Section 93 of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01]” More
The plaintiff sued the two defendants claiming basically for his restoration as the registered buyer of house number 360 Makusha Township, Shurugwi
In his summons and declaration the plaintiff alleged that on 20 August 1981 he entered into a written agreement of sale with Dickson Katerere (“D Katerere”) in respect of house number 360 Makusha Township Shurugwi. The plaintiff was the purchaser and D Katerere was the seller. More
This is an application for condonation of the late filing of Heads of Argument and Rescission of Judgment granted in the main matter in case Number HC 10930/14. More
: On 26th March 2018, I dismissed the claimant’s claim to immovable property which was placed under attachment in execution of the order of this court in HC 196/16. The claimant has requested for written reasons for my disposition. The reasons are captioned herein.
It is important to place the brief background to the interpleader summons into perspective. On the 5th April 2016, MANGOTA J in the matter of CBZ Bank Limited vs Nencon Investments (Pvt) Ltd and Anor HC 196/16 granted the following order: More
This is an application for bail pending appeal in a rape case. Accused was convicted and sentenced to 17 years of which 2 years were suspended for 5 years on the usual conditions for rape of a minor child aged 7 years old. More
The plaintiff is claiming personal damages arising from injuries which he sufferedas a result of a road traffic accident which occurred on 9 April 2012. The facts in the matter are common cause. Whilst aboard the commuter omnibus which is owned by the defendant, the driver of the bus lost control of the vehicle when the bus hit a pot-hole which caused the bus to overturn. The driver of the bus died on the spot and twenty people were injured. After the accident, the plaintiff was conveyed to Parirenyatwa hospital where he was admitted and treated for his injuries. The... More
This is an appeal against the decision of the magistrate sitting in Gweru. The grounds of appeal are that:
“1. The court a quo erred in granting the application for absolution from the instance, when the same did not find favour in the law.
2. The court a quo grossly misdirected itself in absolving the plaintiff’s claims, when the plaintiff’ had established a prima facie case with facts supportive of his cause and warranting the defendant to be placed on his defence to rebut the claims”.
The appeal was dealt with on 20 May 2020 and an ex tempo judgment... More
This matter was set down as an application in terms of section 93 (7) (ii) Labour Act [Cap 28:01] where the applicant was seeking an order to compel the respondent employer to pay him certain money which he believed was due to him following a settlement of a labour dispute between him and the respondent employer. More
The appellant raised a point in limine that while respondent has applied for condonation for late filing of heads of argument the respondent was in fact improperly before the court for failure to file a notice of response. The respondent admitted that they were in breach of filing the notice of response. The issue had also been raised out of court by the court through the clerk as the court wanted to know whether it could be a filing error at the court. Despite this early reminder the respondent had not applied for rectification. In fact the respondent proceeded as... More
On 10 July 2007 my brother UCHENA J issued the following order against the respondent:-
“1. The respondent be and is hereby interdicted from unlawfully interfering with
applicant’s right of occupation and use of piece of land namely Rhodo 2, 26, 51
and 52 situated at Willesden Farm, Goromonzi.
2. The respondent be and is hereby interdicted from making any threats against applicant and his workers and or interfering with them in any manner.
3. The respondent is ordered to keep peace towards applicant.
4. The respondent shall pay costs of this application.” More
