This is an application for condonation of late filing of an application for review under case number HC 2329/16.
BACKGROUND
Prior to 24 May 2016, the applicant was an officer in the Police Service. Following allegations of improper release of suspects and exhibits, the applicant and his accomplice were convicted by a court of a single officer for contravening paragraph 35 of the Schedule to the Police Act (Chapter 11:10) as read with sections 29 and 34 of the said Act i.e. “Acting in a manner reasonably likely to bring discredit to the Police Service.” More
The applicant is a serving member of the Zimbabwe Republic Police (ZRP) and holds the rank of constable. He filed this application through the urgent chamber book seeking an interim order for the stay of proceedings pending the outcome of two High Court applications he filed with this court. There cases are HC CAPP 55/23 and HC CAPP 61/23. More
The following are the reasons informing my decision to dismiss applicant’s quest to have the decision of the 1st respondent set aside on review. The reasons are and provided at the behest of the applicant who has since mounted an appeal against that decision. The review application attacked the decision of the 1st respondent to refuse discharge the applicant at the close of the case for the prosecution. The applicant is currently on trial in terms of internal disciplinary proceedings conducted under the Police Act, [Chapter 11:10]. More
This is an application for review, in which the applicant seeks the setting asideof trial proceedings instituted against him by the respondents and for an order barring the respondents from conducting trial proceedings against the applicant in respect of the allegations for which the applicant was to appear before the first respondent. The application is opposed by the respondents. More
The applicant made this application and simply titled it, “Court application for review”. He listed the grounds for review as follows:
“The dismissal of the applicant’s appeal against discharge by the 1st respondent are full of procedural irregularities in that:
1. By dismissing the applicant’s appeal against discharge, when the state had failed to prove a prima facie case, against applicant, respondents gave themselves power where it is not supposed to exist.
2. The 2nd respondent dismally failed to give reasons for their decision of dismissing applicant’s appeal against discharge. By so doing it is clear that the applicant can... More
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
