On the 28th September, 2018 applicant filed an application with this Court citing Section 12B (3) of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01] (THE ACT) seeking a declaration, declaring his resignation an act of constructive dismissal by respondent More
The first and second applicants are members of the third applicant, an unincorporated association. The third applicant approached the court in terms of Order 2A of the High Court Rules, which recognizes its status as such. The first respondent is an administrative body tasked with providing services for residence of Harare. It is established in terms of the Urban Councils Act . One of its major functions is the regulation of the disposal of land that falls under its jurisdiction. In casu, it stands accused by the applicants of surreptitiously selling a piece of land to the second respondent. It... More
In March 2009, the applicant approached this court on a certificate of urgency and obtained a provisional order calling upon the respondents to show cause why they should not be ordered to release certain items of household goods and effects whose details were listed in an annexure to the application. As interim relief the second respondent was ordered not to sell or dispose of any of the property on the schedule. The second respondent was also restrained from releasing any of the property to anyone other than the applicant. More
Before the matter proceeded into the merits, a preliminary point was raised on behalf of the respondent. It was submitted that the appeal was filed out of the prescribed period and therefore improperly before the court.
For the respondent it was submitted that the appeal was against a determination of 27 November 2013. The appeal before the court was filed on 8 July 2015. The background to this case was given as follows:
The appellant and respondents had a labour dispute. The matter was eventually placed before the General Engineering Committee of the National Employment Council for the Engineering and... More
The applicant is a company duly incorporated according to the laws of Zimbabwe. It specializes in electronics, solar and gas appliances. First, second and third respondents are ex-employees of the applicant. Upon leaving employment, first and second respondents founded the fourth respondent, whose line of business is more or less similar to that of the applicant. Fourth respondent was incorporated according to the laws of Zimbabwe. The applicant accuses respondents of certain business malpractices that it finds synonymous with unlawful competition and therefore a threat to its own business. For that reason, it approached this court seeking an interdict against... More
At the onset of oral argument in this Court respondent raised points in limine,
The points are set out in its opposing affidavit thus,
“Point in Limine
a.Defective Notice of Appeal
The Respondent submits that there is no Notice of Appeal before the Honourable court for want of non-compliance (sic) with the Rules of this Court.
The Labour Court Rules, SI 150/2017 clearly stipulates that the Notice of Appeal should be in Form LC 4 and this Form LC 4 is clearly provided for
The Appellant in clear contravention of the Rules of Court, went on to manufacture his own... More
This application initially came as an application for a provisional order for the company’s voluntary winding up. A provisional liquidation order was granted on 22 June 2011. On 27 July 2011 the respondent filed its notice of opposition. The matter is here today for the confirmation of the provisional liquidation order granted on the 22nd of June 2011. More
The plaintiff claims a total sum US$14,875 being the balance due in respect of two batches of broiler chicks delivered to the defendant in October 2008 and February 2009. The defendant disputes the principal claim on several grounds and counterclaims damages in reconvention for the payment of US$9,331 in addition to set-off of the total amount claimed by the plaintiff More
Plaintiff issued summons against the Defendant, on 30 June 2011, claiming:
1. Payment in the sum of US$178 294,00 (one hundred and seventy eight thousand two hundred and ninety four United States Dollars), being damages suffered by Plaintiff as an alleged consequence of defective goods sold to Plaintiff, by Defendant, in or about December 2010.
2. Interest at the prescribed rate, calculated from 15 April 2011, being the date of demand, to the date of payment in full.
3. Costs of suit.
In its declaration, Plaintiff averred that, Defendant knew, at all material times, that it was in the business... More
An application for stay of execution of an arbitral award was placed before me. It was not opposed. The referral minute from the Registrar’s Office stated:
“For your consideration is an urgent application for stay of execution in terms of Section (Rule) 34 of the Labour Court Rules S.I. 59/2006 ... no comments have been filed despite proof of service on the respondent.”
The application was therefore treated as an unopposed matter and the relief sought was accordingly granted. More
This is an application for bail pending trial. Applicant is facing a charge of “unlawful possession of raw ivory of elephant” as defined in section 82(1) of the Parks and Wildlife Regulations S.I. 362/1990 as read with section 128 (1) (b) of the Parks and Wildlife Act [Chapter 20:14]. It is alleged that on the 24th May 2020 and at a bus terminus at Makwika Village, Hwange, the accused unlawfully possessed eight raw unmarked pieces of ivory weighing 9 405 kilograms without a permit. More
: On 14 July, 2016 I dismissed an interlocutory application wherein the applicant in the main divorce matrimonial matter HC 10414/14 sought to resile from an admission made at pre-trial conference. More
The applicants in the main case number HC 6113/16 applied for rescission of judgment in terms of order 9 r 63 (1) (2) of the High Court Rules. The order that was granted in default was under case number HC8895/12. More
When parties appeared before me they agreed that this matter proceeds as a stated case. The first plaintiff is CRIEFF INVESTMENTS (PRIVATE) LIMITED, a company duly incorporated according to the laws of Zimbabwe, the second plaintiff is ALDAWILIA INVESTMENTS (PRIVATE) LIMITED. The second plaintiff changed its name to the first plaintiff. In essence the first and the second plaintiff are one party. The first defendant is GRAND HOME CENTRE PRIVATE LIMITED, a company duly incorporated according to the laws of Zimbabwe and whose address for service is care of its legal practitioners of record. The second and the third defendants... More
The Applicant is Crisis Coalition in Zimbabwe Trust, a trust that has been registered as such in terms of the laws of this country. The respondent is Superintendent G. Moyo, N.O. the Harare District Regulatory Authority in terms of the Maintenance of Peace and Order Act [Chapter 11. 23]. This is an urgent chamber application wherein the applicant is seeking an interim interdict against the first respondent so that he and all acting under or through him will not interfere with the applicant intended public meeting scheduled for 12 August 2022. The application was filed on 11August 2022 but the... More
