These are two separate applications which are substantially similar, in that they raise the same issues and seek the same kind of relief against the same respondent church. More
These are two separate appeals against the same decision of the High Court (“the court a quo”) in an interpleader application, wherein the court a quo dismissed the two appellants’ claims to movable properties attached by the first respondent in each appeal (hereinafter referred to as “the Sheriff”) in execution of a judgment debt. The two appeals were consolidated and heard as one appeal. For the sake of convenience, the Court will refer to the appellant in the first appeal as “the first appellant” and the appellant in the second appeal as “the second appellant”. After hearing submissions by counsel,... More
This is an appeal against the whole judgment of the High Court sitting at Harare dated 10 July2019 in favour of the respondent. The court a quo in this case granted an interdict against the first and second appellants ordering them to share the money collected between 2014 and 2018 in accordance with the partnership agreement and stopping them from interfering with the management of stands 147 and 151 Mbuya Nehanda Street Harare. More
The appeal has been lodged against the determination by Respondent’s Appeals Committee handed down on 20 October, 2009 wherein the Appeals Committee confirmed the findings and penalty of dismissal imposed by the Disciplinary Committee. More
The applicant is a company duly incorporated in terms of the laws of Zimbabwe. It carries on the business of electrical engineering. The first respondent was its employee. He was its Chief Executive Officer. He tendered his letter of resignation on 8 February 2010. The second respondent is the first respondent’s company duly registered in terms of the laws of Zimbabwe. It like the applicant carries on the business of electrical engineering. More
This is an appeal against the quantification proceedings held before the Honourable Mlilwana. The brief facts are that the respondent was employed by the appellant. Following disagreements at the workplace, the matter finally ended in arbitration. The arbitrator found in favour of respondent and ordered her reinstatement. The respondent later approached the arbitrator for quantification in lieu of reinstatement. The parties appeared before the arbitrator and the arbitrator quantified the damages in lieu of reinstatement in the sum of $4 455-00. The appellant is dissatisfied with this decision and has approached this Court for relief. More
This is an appeal againstthe appeals committee’s decision to uphold the decision to find the appellant guilty of two charges in violation of section 4 (b) and 4 (f) of Statutory Instrument 15 of 2006, that is willful disobedience to a lawful order and gross incompetence or inefficiency in the performance of his work. More
Appellant was employed by respondent as a Club Steward. On
2 October 2013, appellant was apprehended carrying some items in his bag by security personnel which allegedly belonged to respondent. Appellant was subsequently suspended and brought before a Hearing Committee. The Committee recommended his dismissal. Appellant approached the Ministry of Labour which office referred the matter to compulsory arbitration. The arbitrator found in favour of respondent. More
This is an urgent chamber application seeking aninterim order in the following terms
"1. Applicant be and is hereby restored in House No. 493 Masvingo Cooperative Union, Jerera.
2. The second Respondent be and is hereby ordered to restore Applicant and all his belongings back into House No. 493 Masvingo Cooperative Union, Jerera."
The application is opposed by the first respondent. More
In this application the applicant, a new farmer and the proud holder of an offer letter dated 13 December 2008 in respect of subdivision A of Xekene Extensionin Seke District of Mashonaland East Province (the farm) seeks a declarator that he is lawfully authorised to be in occupation of the said farm, that the first respondent, who is a previous owner of the farm who is resisting eviction, should give him vacant possession or face eviction and all this on the pain of costs on the scale of legal practitioner and client. More
The applicant was arraigned before the Magistrates Court on a charge of rape as defined in s 65 (1) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23]. It is alleged that some time in December 2020 the complainant approached the accused’s shop to buy a zip. The accused took advantage of being alone with the complainant and forced the complainant to sit on his lap following which he exposed his and her private parts and forcefully inserted his male organ into the complainant’s private parts thereby having none consensual sexual intercourse with the complainant. More
This is an application for reinstatement of a matter on to the roll. It was deemed abandoned in terms of Rule 46 of the Rules of this Court Statutory Instrument 150/17. The application is opposed. At the commencement of the hearing two preliminary issues were taken on behalf of the applicant. More
Appellant (employee) appealed to this Court against his dismissal from employment by respondents (employer). The appeal was made in terms of Section 51 of the Public Service Regulations S.I. 01 of 2000. The employer opposed the appeal. More
