This is an opposed application in which the applicant seeks the following order;-
IT IS ORDERED THAT:-
1. The Respondent be and is hereby ordered to pay to the Applicant a sum of US$1500 per month as and by way of maintenance with effect from the date of this application and thereafter on or before the first day of each month until the main matter under case reference number HC6214/2011 is determined to finality by the court.
2. The Respondent be and is hereby ordered to deposit with Messrs Costa & Madzonga within seven days of the date of this... More
The appellant was employed by the first respondent as a Finance Manager on a five-year fixed term contract for the period 1 July 2016 to 30 June 2021. The contract was terminated on three months’ notice which expired on 30 December 2020. The appellant was aggrieved by the termination and approached the second respondent, a labour officer with a claim for unlawful dismissal. More
On 30 October 2013 the court issued a rule nisi pursuant to s 24(5) of the former Constitution. The rule nisi called upon the Minister of Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs (“the Minister”) to show cause, on 20 November 2013, why s 31(a)(iii) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23] (the Criminal Code) should not be declared to be ultra vires s 20(1) of the former Constitution and accordingly invalid. More
The applicant is an accused in a criminal trial at Harare Magistrates Courts in which he faces two counts of fraud as defined in s 136 (a) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) act [Chapter 9:23] hereinafter referred to as (“The Code”). More
The parties are apparently engaged in bitter acrimonious divorce proceedings. On 01 October 2012 they appeared before me for a pre-trial conference in terms of the rules of Court. At that hearing counsel for the plaintiff mooted the need to separate the divorce proceedings from the division of property issues. As this was a novel suggestion to me I queried whether it was legally competent to determine the two issues separately. Mr. Fitches counsel for the plaintiff stated that this was possible on the basis of the precident set out in the case of Chivhiya v Chivhiya for which he... More
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
This is an application for a declaratur. Initially, the applicant filed an urgent chamber application for an interdict against the respondents. The basis for the application was that the Applicant had received unlawful tax assessments from the 1st Respondent on the 6th of June 2024 which were unlawful because they are in foreign currency, despite the Applicant having never accrued or earned foreign currency as envisaged in s 4(A) of the Finance Act [ Chapter 23:04]. 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
