This is an appeal against the whole judgment of the High Court handed down on 24 January 2020. The appeal seeks to impugn the court a quo’s order awarding custody of the parties’ three minor children to the respondent upon the separation of the parties. More
This is an appeal against the order of the Magistrate in the court a quo. The grounds of appeal are that the learned Magistrate in the court a quo had erred and misdirected herself in not raising meru motu the issue of jurisdiction as the claim was in excess of the jurisdiction of the Magistrates court. It was further contended in the notice of appeal that the learned Magistrate had misdirected herself by failing to appreciate that as Stand 633 Fletcher Road, Norton had been acquired from a previous marriage and had since been sold. Appellant did not own Mitengo... More
The applicant and the respondent are presently involved in proceedings before this court under HC 9837/19 in which the applicant in casu is “the plaintiff”, while the respondent is “the defendant”. In order to avoid confusion, and consistent with the citation of the parties in the main proceedings, I will refer to the parties as they are cited in those proceedings. Additionally, for completeness of the record, I mention that they were married in terms of an unregistered customary law union, which was terminated by the plaintiff on 24 November 2019 when he gave the defendant a divorce token called... More
The plaintiff herein seeks the cancellation of an agreement between the parties for the sale of a motor vehicle and damages for breach of contract in the sum of US$6,500. The principal issues for determination are whether the defendant represented that it was the owner of the motor vehicle and whether it breached the contract of sale by not guaranteeing vacant possession of the vehicle to the plaintiff. More
The appellant appeals against the whole judgment of the High Court dated 14 March 2012, wherein the court a quo granted an order for the eviction of the appellant. The appellant was evicted from the respondent’s three immovable properties situated in Harare. The eviction awarded punitive costs as against the appellant and its legal practitioner Mr D. Chinawa. More
The applicant in this matter (Case No. SC 402/13) filed an application to adduce further evidence on appeal in the main matter (Case No. SC 88/12). Both matters were set down to be heard together on 19 March 2015. After hearing counsel, the application to adduce further evidence was dismissed with costs. Thereafter, counsel for the applicant sought a postponement of the main matter in order to consider the applicant’s constitutional rights, in particular, the right to a fair hearing, in relation to the dismissal of the application. More
The Respondent is a Risk and Compliance Manager under the employ of the Appellant. On 11 March 2021 the Respondent spilled tea on his office laptop leading to the machine malfunctioning and it was sent for repairs at the cost of the Appellant. Following upon the report being made the Appellant conducted an investigation and findings were made that Respondent had contravened Clause 3.7 of the ICT Policy which has provisions that prohibit consumption of food and drinks near computers and all ICT hardware. This policy was said to be well known to the Respondent who had committed himself to... More
Appellant was in the employ of the Respondent as Finance and Administration Director. Allegations of misconduct were levelled against in terms of the National Code of Conduct, that is, contravening section 4 (a), it being alleged that he was guilty of gross incompetence or inefficiency in the performance of his duties. The brief allegations were that Appellant had presented a financial report containing incorrect information which was calculated to mislead Respondent’s Board. In the hearing several witnesses were called to testify against the Appellant. It is important to make the observation that none of the witnesses gave any evidence to... More
Appellant appealed to this Court against his dismissal from employment by Respondent. The appeal was made in terms of section 92D of the Labour Act Chapter 28:01.
Respondent opposed the appeal. The grounds of appeal read thus,
1. The Chairperson of the Disciplinary Committee grossly erred and misdirected himself in making a finding that the Appellant was grossly inefficient in the performance of his duties in circumstances where the allegations were not supported by any of the evidence led in oral testimony.
2. The Chairperson of the Disciplinary Committee grossly erred and misdirected himself in shifting the burden of proof... More
This application was placed before me in Chambers as an unopposed application. On 26 October 2016, the applicant had filed a suit against the respondent, claiming the sum of US$ 25 000-00 for adultery damages. She claims that the respondent has been involved in an adulterous relationship with her husband and that their unlawful union resulted in the birth of a girl child out of wedlock, in March 2017. More
This is an urgent chamber application in which the applicant’s legal practitioner raised a preliminary point which needs to be determined before the Court can proceed to hear the preliminary points that the respondents raise. More
This is an urgent chamber application for an interdict directing the first and second respondents to restore the status quo ante at the first applicant’s place of business being number 9B Ridgeway South, Highlands, Harare, as well as prohibiting them from further interference with the terms and conditions stated in the second applicant’s operating licence. More
The plaintiff issued summons against the defendant claiming payment of US$16 175 740-72 for fees owed by the defendant for professional services at the defendant’s special instance and request in or around 2007. The amount was due and payable sometime around 3 April 2009. More
This matter came to me as an opposed application. It was an application in terms of Order 40 Rule 359 (8) of the High Court Rules, 1971. After reading documents filed of record and after hearing counsel, I dismissed the application with an award of costs on the ordinary scale. Below are the reasons for my decision. More
The plaintiff herein claims general damages for unlawful arrest, detention and assault by two police officers, the 3rd and 4th defendants. In particular, he seeks damages for shock, pain and suffering, and for contumely, unlawful arrest and detention, in the total sum of US$4,000. The defendants accept that the plaintiff was lawfully arrested, but deny that he was assaulted or otherwise maltreated. More
