The applicant is deputy president in the first respondent, a pentecostal church. He filed this application through the urgent chamber book. He did so on 3 August, 2018. He couched his draft order in the following terms:
“1. TERMS OF THE FINAL ORDER SOUGHT
That you show cause to this Honourable Court why a final order should not be made in the following terms:
1. No writ or execution of the order obtained in the High Court held at Harare under case No. HC 4756/18 will be issued or actioned by the respondents during the pendency of the application for... More
This is an opposed urgent application seeking an order for an interdict in the following terms:
“TERMS OF THE FINAL ORDER SOUGHT:
That you must show cause to this Honourable court why a final order should not be made in the following terms;
1. The 1st respondent its privies, agents and/or employees be and hereby interdicted from interfering with or dealing with the 3000 tonnes of gold dump, 1800 tonnes of gold sand, the mill shed, fence and borehole pump located at the mining site known as Whatcheeer INVAR C 14322 pending resolution of the summons matter under case number... More
The applicant approached this court on a certificate of urgency for a provisional order in terms of which are the following:
“TERMS OF THE FINAL ORDER SOUGHT
1. A writ of execution sued out by the 1st to 6th respondents against applicant pursuant to the court order granted in case number HC 7774/15 be and is hereby permanently stayed.
2. The 1st to 6th respondent to pay costs. More
This is an appeal against a determination by an arbitrator. In order for such an appeal to be properly before the Court,issues of law only must be raised as provided for in Section 98(10) of the Labour Act [Cap 28:01] (The Act). More
The application before the court is for bail pending appeal against sentence. The State opposed the application and the court to a greater extend agreed with the State and thus dismissed the application. More
The applicant seeks an order for the eviction of the respondent and all those occupying through her from a certain piece of land situate in Harare known as Stand 17788 of Harare Township of Salisbury, otherwise known as number 17788 Watermeyer Road, Belvedere, Harare (the property).
The applicant is the registered owner of the property as more fully attested to by the Deed of Transfer registered in its name under DT 2882/17. The applicant claims that the respondent is in occupation of the property unlawfully, without its permission. The applicant wants her out of the property. The respondent has not... More
The brief history of this matter is that the respondent was employed as a Senior Accounts Clerk based at Mutawatawa Depot. His duties involved overseeing the stores section at the Depot. In March 2013 the appellant received information to the effect that the respondent was selling the appellant’s diesel to the public without the appellant’s management authority. In April 2013 the respondent was charged with gross misconduct. He was found guilty and dismissed from employment with effect from 11 April 2013. More
The claim in this matter was filed against the first defendant in March 2005. Trial commenced in October 2008 and has spanned over some 18 months. The cumulative delay between the time of the filing of the summons and the handing down of judgment is a record five years. The telling point though is that there is no letter of complaint from the plaintiff over the time it has taken to get this matter finalized. More
Applicant applied to this Court for condonation of a belated Response. Respondent opposed the applicant.
The basis of the application is set out in applicant’s founding affidavit More
In this urgent chamber application the applicant, established in January 2006 to represent and coordinate companies in the cotton industry in Zimbabwe, seeks a provisional order against the first respondent in the following terms:
“TERMS OF THE FINAL ORDER SOUGHT
1. The first respondent is hereby interdicted from purchasing any contracted seed cotton from growers contracted to the applicant’s members.
2. The first respondent is interdicted from purchasing or taking delivery of any seed cotton packed in cotton packs bearing the logo or name or acronym of the applicant’s members.
3. The first respondent is ordered to render an account... More
This is an appeal against an arbitral award in favour of the Respondents. The Respondents were employed by Myramah Farming (Pvt) Ltd t/a Cottzim from September 2009 to September 2012. Respondents’ services were terminated. They approached the Labour Officer for conciliation on a dispute of unlawful termination by Cottzim. The parties reached an agreement but Appellant reneged on it. The matter was referred to arbitration. The Arbitrator put the terms of the agreement before the Labour Officer as the award. More
This application as I will demonstrate below has a checked history and was punctuated by episodes of drama. On the 17th May 2017 in Case Number HC 3855/17 this court granted an interim interdict in favour of the applicant Country Club Twenty-Ten (Private ) Limited. Dissatisfied by the Interim Order the respondents filed a Notice of Appeal in the Supreme Court on the 29th May 2017 in Case Number SC 325/17. The appeal is still pending. More
On 28 September 2010 the applicant and the first respondent entered into a Management Agreement. In terms of the Agreement the first respondent appointed the applicant as the executive management of the Club for fifty years enduring until the 30th of September 2060. More
The appellant appeals against the determination of an arbitrator which ordered it to pay salary arrears in the sum of $221 646.50 in 9 instalments of $24 627.39 per month.
All the respondents were employed by the appellant. It is not in dispute that the respondents did not receive their salaries for sometime when the appellant experienced financial challenges. At times they were underpaid. The respondents filed a claim for the recovery of the money with a labour officer. When conciliation efforts failed the matter was referred to arbitration. The arbitrator made a finding set out in the first paragraph... More
