This is an appeal against an arbitral award handed down on 7 March 2014, in terms of which the dismissal of the respondent from the employment of the appellant was held to be unlawful.
The background to the matter is that the Respondent was employed by the Appellant as a security guard. On 7 October 2012, he was on duty at the Kingdom Bank 1st Street ATM machine, when the machine was tampered with by one of the customers. The incident led to the Respondent facing charges of gross incompetence, inefficiency and negligence, in terms of the National Employment Council... More
On the 24th of November 2021, 3rd respondent’s enforcement team based at Beitbridge or routine compliance checks intercepted a foreign registered truck towing taut liner interlink trailers bearing registration numbers JJ287H GP/KK3579MP; KK5571MP in a tunnel towards an imports scanner. Upon request, the driver presented Bill of Entry number C84043 dated 27 November 2021 indicating that the truck was carrying diapers. The truck was referred for scanning to confirm the goods reflected on the declaration. Before the image analyst could start scanning, the driver jumped out of the truck and sped off towards the last check point. The driver abandoned... More
This case represents a very sad state of affairs on the part of the Minister as the acquiring authority of land in this country and the other ancillary Government departments in land allocation and distribution. They are not able to speak with one voice and they have been sending conflicting signals to the occupiers of Tavydale Farm. This approach does not bring transparency to the whole land regime in this country. More
The two applicants (Dean Benjamin and Muzaffar Khan) are seeking an order particularized on the draft along the following format:
“IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1. The 2nd and 3rd Respondents are hereby ordered to restore possession of the Volvo A 30 D Dump Truck to the Applicants within 48 hours of being served with this order.
2. Failing compliance with the order in (1) above, the 1st Respondent is hereby ordered to enforce the order in (1) above and restore possession of the Volvo A 30 D Dump Truck to the Applicants, forthwith.
3. The Respondents jointly and severally one... More
1. This is an opposed application for quantification of damages in lieu of reinstatement. It is made after the employer has not reinstated the employee and there were no negotiations to settle the matter. It is one of those many cases where parties do not want to co-operate and resolve their issues out of court. More
The parties in this matter entered into marriage in terms of the then Marriage Act, [Cap 37] (now Cap 5: 11) on 9 July 1988. Some twenty years later, on 3 December, 2008 the defendant instituted this divorce action, citing various reasons which she claims indicate that their marriage has irretrievably broken down. More
MAXWELL J: On 24 November 2021, a spoliation order in favour of the applicant was issued. On 26 November 2021, a request for reasons for the judgment was made for the purpose of an appeal under SC456/21. These are they:
On 17 November 2021 applicant approached this court on an urgent basis seeking among other things, a spoliation order against the first respondent. She wanted immediate restoration of her exclusive occupation of 12 Beach Road, Borrowdale, Harare. Applicant stated that she is married to first respondent but they are in the midst of a divorce, case number HC 5353/21. The... More
This is an appeal against the decision of the Labour Officer who held that respondent employee was unlawfully dismissed by the employer and that she was entitled to 36 months damages for loss of employment, payment of her leave days and payment of acting allowances due to her. More
The applicant is a tenant occupying premises known as Ground Floor, Building 3 at Arundel Office Park, Mount Pleasant Harare by virtue of a lease agreement entered into with the respondent. When a rent dispute arose between the parties, it was referred to arbitration in terms of clause 34 of the written lease agreement of the parties, through the President of The Real Estate of Zimbabwe, who appointed the second respondent as arbitrator. More
The plaintiff, a peregrine company, issued summons against the defendants, jointly and severally, claiming payment of $290 866.50 arising out of a balance due on goods sold and delivered at the defendant’s specific instance and request, interest at the bank rate of 24% per annum from due date to date of full payment, collection commission and costs of suit. More
This is an application for reinstatement of case number HC 6528/18 on the roll pursuant to the provisions of paragraph 7 of Practice Direction 2 of 2013 and other ancillary reliefs. More
The plaintiff in this case claims payment in the sum of $29 million, together with interest at the prescribed rate, in respect of a cheque drawn on the account of the 3rd defendant and signed by the 1st and 2nd defendants. More
On 16 May 2019 the appellant noted an appeal against the whole judgment of the Magistrate’s Court handed down on 23 April 2019 at Mutare laying out the grounds of appeal as well as relief sought as follows:
“A. GROUNDS OF APPEAL
1. The Learned Magistrate erred at law by making a finding based on the papers that the appellant was in defiance of a court order without holding a proper enquiry.
2. The Learned Magistrate thus erred by refusing to hear the appellant on the merits.
3. The Learned Magistrate also erred at law by ordering the incarceration of... More
: In this urgent application the applicant prays for a provisional order which is couched as follows:
“TERMS OF FINAL ORDER SOUGHT:
That you show cause to the Honourable Court why a final order should not be made in the following terms:
1. The 1st, 2nd and 3rd Respondent be and are hereby ordered to vacate and ensure that its officers are removed from the property called Haydon Farm Mt Hampden Zvimba.
2. The 1st and 2nd Respondent’s officers are hereby interdicted and barred from entering said property.
3. The 1st and 2nd Respondents shall pay the costs of this... More
This is an appeal against an arbitral award issued on 27 February 2014. The arbitrator having made a finding that respondents’ dismissal was unfair ordered that the respondents be paid US$1008-55 each within a month of the order. More
