This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court sitting at Harare under case number HC 6431/14 and judgment number HH 405/17 handed down on 28 June 2017. The respondents had filed an application for a review of the first appellant’s decision in proceedings which led to the dismissal of the first and second respondents. The court a quo set aside the dismissal of the second respondent and ordered that he be reinstated to his former position as Lieutenant at the School of Signals. More
MAKONESE J: This is an application for summary judgment. It is premised on a summons for eviction. The application is opposed.
Factual Background
On 9 June 2017 the applicant and respondent entered into a commercial lease agreement in respect of stand 80 Simon Mazorodze Road, Harare (the property). In terms of clause 1.4 of the agreement the parties agreed that there would be a rent review annually. In September 2019 a dispute arose between the parties with respondent demanding to negotiate and to have access to the agreements in relation to the review between the primary landlord and the applicant.... More
On 20 June 2012, this court granted an order placing the respondent under provisional liquidation following an application by the applicant, one of the respondent’s creditors, which is owed a sum of US$935 796-33 in terms of yet another order of this court issued by consent on 12 January 2012. More
This matter was first placed before my brother MAFUSIRE J on 2 February 2017. The applicants successfully sought his recusal and since we are only two judges at the station the matter landed on my desk. I proceeded to set the matter down for hearing on 8 February 2017 but on that date I was advised that Counsel for all the respondents were not available due to earlier commitments. I was compelled to reschedule the matter for hearing on 15 February 2017. More
The applicant is the Commercial Workers Union of Zimbabwe, a union which represents the interests of commercial workers in Zimbabwe. The respondents are members of the union who filed an ex parte application in the magistrate’s court and obtained the following interim order: More
The facts of this case are largely undisputed. Following suspicion that respondent had committed acts of misconduct, he was suspended without pay and benefits on 12 October 2009. The letter of suspension also invited respondent to attend a disciplinary hearing on 30 October 2009. Two charges were preferred against the respondent it being theft or fraud and failure to deposit subscriptions he received within the stipulated seven days. He was found liable and dismissed. Respondent referred the matter to the Ministry of Labour for conciliation. Conciliation failed and the parties subsequently More
This is an application for a declaratur in terms of which the applicant seeks the following order.
1. That the allocation and sale of stands 19751 – 19793 Budiriro Township to applicant’s member co-operatives by the first respondent is legally binding and
2. The first, second and third respondents be and are hereby ordered to stop the re-planning and or re-allocation of stands 19751 – 19793 to any other person who is not the applicant’s member co-operatives.
3. The sixth respondent be and is hereby ordered to demolish the brick and mortar wall erected encroaching over the applicant’s member co-operatives... More
The applicant, (the Union) seeks an order placing the 1st respondent, (Telecel) on corporate rescue in terms of section 124 (1) of the Insolvency Act, Chapter 6:07 (the Act). The Union contends that the requirements of section 124 (4) (a) of the Act are met in that Telecel is financially distressed. The Union claims to have locus standi as a creditor and a registered trade union representing Telecel employees.
Telecel opposes the application and raised three preliminary points which is the subject of this ruling. More
During the pre-trial conference, the parties agreed that this matter be dealt with as a special case in terms of Order 29, r 199 of the High Court Rules, 1971. The facts in relation to the special case are contained in a document signed on 28 August 2020 by both parties, whose contents are captured below: More
1. The applicant as its name implies, is a trade union, duly registered in accordance with the laws of the country, to represent the interests of the workers in the communications and related industries. The respondent is a provider of communication services. Its employees are members of the applicant.
2. On 6 October 2005, the employees of the respondent went on strike after giving the employer notice of their intention to do so.
3. When served with the notice of intention to go on strike, the respondent applied to the Minister of Public Service, Labour and Social Welfare for a... More
The applicant was formed by Harare residents in 2003 and registered as a Trust in 2006. Although in the founding affidavit deposed to by one Stewart Musiwa he himself as “the Director, of applicant company,” this is clearly a misnomer as the applicant is not a registered company but a trust. More
This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court, absolving the respondent from the instance, at the close of the appellant’s case as plaintiff in that court. More
This is a competition law matter and concerns the definition of the term “merger”, in terms of the Competition Act, [Chapter 14:28], [hereinafter referred to as the Act]. More
This matter came before me as an application for stay of execution. The record reflects the applicant as Samson Makonde. By consent it was agreed to amend this erroneous citation on the record and court roll so that the applicant is correctly cited as COMTY ELECTRONICS RIBBON WORLD (PVT) LTD. Samson Makondeis only the manager representing applicant. More
The court is satisfied that this application has no merit for the following reasons:
1) The court correctly found that there was no lawful instruction and clearly articulated its reasons for stating so, thus a superior court is not likely to interfere with that finding.
2) The issue of clarity of charges was also adequately explained in the judgment.
3) Deliberation of what the correct charge should have been way after the employee had pleaded to the charge is indeed an abuse of disciplinary powers and the judgment explains in detail why the court formulated that opinion.
4) As the... More
