The applicant, who faces three charges in the magistrate court one being
for extortion as defined in s 134 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act,
[Chapter 9:23] the second being for possession of dangerous drugs as defined in s 157 of the
same Code and the third being for possession of prescription preparatory Drugs as defined in
s 30 (1) of the Medicine and Allied Substances Control Act, [Chapter15:03] was denied bail
pending tria More
This is an application for leave to appeal against a decision of the High Court in terms of r 30 (c) of the Supreme Court Rules, 1964. After hearing counsel and reading the papers filed of record, I ordered that the application be struck off the roll and indicated that the reasons would follow. More
This is an appeal against the whole judgment of the High Court (“the court a quo”) handed down on 1 December 2020 dismissing the appellant’s application for a declaratur.
Whilst in the midst of considering the judgment the appellant’s legal practitioners wrote a letter in October 2021 to the Registrar seeking audience with the court over proceedings in the court a quo and what they claimed to have discovered post the appeal hearing. Such communication was brought to our attention. Our concern was on the appropriateness of the procedure and purpose of such audience. In reaction the respondent’s legal practitioners... More
This is an appeal against the whole judgment of the Labour Court, dated 3 April 2019, setting aside the dismissal of the respondent by the appellant. The facts giving rise to the appeal are largely common cause. More
This is an application for condonation and extension of time within which to appeal against the decision of the Labour Court. The application is brought in terms of r 43(1) of the Supreme Court Rules, 2018 (the rules). More
The appellant is appealing against the honourable arbitrator M Mpango dated 26th day of March 2012. The accused was couched as follows:
“The respondent perpetrated unfair labour practices by treating claimants as casual workers after the expiry of six weeks in four consecutive months in violation of the relevant collective bargaining agreement. It is hereby ordered that the respondent re-instates the claimants or pay $1741-00 to each of the claimants as damages in lieu of re-instatement. The respondent is also ordered to pay $4 818-00 to each of the claimants in respect of underpayment of wages, overtime and allowances.” More
Respondent was in the employ of the Applicant. Allegations of misconduct were levelled against her, and she was brought before a Disciplinary Committee in terms of the Applicant’s Code of Conduct. She was found guilty. The Immediate Superior, as mandated by the Code of Conduct, imposed a penalty on her. The penalty was one of a Final Written Warning. The Respondent thereafter continued coming to work. A few weeks down the line, another penalty of dismissal from employment was issued to her. More
This is an application forleave to appeal from this court decision handed down on 20th December 2019.
The Applicant having filed its heads of argument out of time and,being, as a consequence of the operation of Rule 26 of the Rules of Court,technically barred, the Applicant filed an application for the upliftment of the bar. The application was opposed by the Respondent. More
This is an appeal and cross-appeal against parts of the judgment of the Special Court (for Income Tax Appeals) dated 11 October 2019 dismissing some of the appellant’s objections against the respondent’s amended assessments, and setting aside some of the respondent’s amended assessments. In this judgment I will refer to the appellant as the main appellant and the respondent as the cross appellant. More
The background facts to this matter are outlined by the applicant as follows. The 1st claimant leases a farm owned by the 2nd claimant. In 2018 it entered into a finance agreement with Honeytech Investments Pvt Ltd (the 1st claimant) in terms of which the applicant extended to the 1st claimant a loan in the sum of US$384 000.00. The 1st claimant was obliged to utilize the finance to plant a barley crop. The 1st claimant planted the crop and delivered to the applicant 730.30 tons of barley valued at US$444 022.40. More
The plaintiff issued summons against the defendants claiming US$26 924.00 being monies due and payable to it in respect of beverages supplied on credit. More
This is a special case in terms of Rule 52 of the High Court Rules, 2021. According to the agreed facts the first defendant acted in breach of contract when they diverted the plaintiff’s funds from the plaintiff’s bank account to their personal accounts. This breach of contract happened between 3 November 2016 and 19 February 2019 and the terms of contract breached are outlined in paragraph 7 of the agreed facts. Paragraph 11 of the same facts also show that the defendants also admitted liability and paid the plaintiff the amount due in RTGS at the rate of 1:1... More
This is an unusual application. The applicant is the purported defendant in a contested action filed by the respondent as plaintiff in this court HC 8956/10. A pre-trial conference was held and the action referred to trial on a set of issues that were agreed between the parties before a judge. More
This is an appeal against the arbitrator’s quantification of damages award made in favour of the Respondent against the Appellant Company. The arbitrator ordered that the Respondent be paid damages in place of reinstatement and back pay in foreign currency following his dismissal by the Appellant Company. More
On 30 March 2023 this Court issued an Ex Tempore decision dismissing Applicant’s application for rescission of the default judgment delivered by the Court sitting at Mutare Circuit Court. Applicant is dissatisfied with the dismissal of the application for rescission and intends to approach the Supreme Court. More
