The applicant filed this urgent chamber application seeking a Provisional Order in the following terms as amended.
TERMS OF FINAL ORDER SOUGHT
“1. In the event of the respondents failing to discharge all of their obligations towards the applicant, including the payment of all capital amounts due and owing to the applicant together with all interest accrued, by 30th October 2011, the first respondent’s shareholding in Africa First Renaissance Corporation Limited, be transferred to the applicant.
2. The respondents pays costs of this application at an attorney and client scale with the one paying the other to be absolved More
The applicant seeks a Provisional Order in the following terms as amended:
“TERMS OF INTERIM RELIEF SOUGHT
IT IS ORDERED:
1. That the first respondent’s share certificates in Africa First Renaissance Corporation Limited be deposited with the registrar, High Court, Harare pending the final determination of this application.
2. That the first respondent be and is hereby interdicted from transferring, disposing of or encumbering in any other way, their shareholding in Africa First Renaissance Corporation Limited pending the final determination of this application.
3. That the Respondents pay the costs of this application, the one paying the other to be... More
The brief history of this matter is that respondent is a former employee of Econet Wireless. He was dismissed from employment in 2004. Respondent challenged his dismissal in 2010. The arbitrator found that the respondent was unfairly dismissed because he was not dismissed in terms of a Code of Conduct. The arbitration also found that there was no fair hearing because the there was no proof that respondent was accorded representation and that he was given adequate time to prepare for the hearing. More
Plaintiff sued defendant for payment of the sum of $20 020.00 being an amount due and owing to plaintiff in respect of the cost of certain recharge cards sold to defendant in terms of a written agreement. More
The plaintiff issued summons against the first defendant for the payment of US$94 652.00 being balance due for airtime recharge cards advanced to the first defendant on credit. The plaintiff was also seeking an order declaring specially executable a certain piece of land situated in the district of Bulawayo being Stand No. 92 Fortunes Gate Township 6 Lot 12 EF Matsheumhlope measuring 4159 square meters held under deed of transfer number 2520/2004. This property belongs to the second defendant who is a director and shareholder of the first defendant. In 2011 he registered a mortgage bond as security for the... More
This is an appeal against the decision of the respondent’s internal appeals committee where it upheld the appellant’s dismissal following allegations of theft and conduct inconsistent with his duties in contravention s D4 and D5 of the respondent’s Code of Conduct. More
This matter came as an Urgent Chamber Application for stay of execution.
The genesis of the matter can be traced back to an HC 2887/05 order granted by GUVAVA J (as she then was) and an HH 458/19 order granted by FOROMA J.
The first applicant is a company, in this matter represented by its general manager by virtue of a resolution attached as Annexure “A”. The company develops and sells residential stands.
The second applicant is a male adult associated with first applicant.
First respondent is an association of residents of Knowe. Second respondent was a chairman of first... More
It is not in dispute that applicant owns a piece of land in Whitecliff which land falls under the jurisdiction of the respondent as the local authority. In 1998 applicant was issued with a permit in terms of the Regional, Town and Country Planning Act, [Chapter 29:12] to subdivide Whitecliff into residential stands. More
On 13 March, 2017 I perused the documents filed of record, heard counsel and delivered an ex tempo judgment. It read:
“IT BE AND IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. The first and second respondents shall, within ten days of service of this order, provide the third respondent with sufficient police manpower and equipment to maintain the peace while the third respondent enforces the writ of ejectment in case number SC 45/12.
2. The first and second respondents shall pay costs of suit. [emphasis added]” More
The matter was placed before me as an application for quantification of damages. Although the matter was initially set down for the 26th March, 2012 the matter was postponed for at least four occasions to allow for negotiations with a view to an out of court settlement of the case. On the last date of hearing i.e. 16 October, 2013 the applicant was directed to place before the court proof of his claims for medical aid and school fees. The proof was to be tendered at the latest by the 25th of October, 2013. The respondent was also granted leave... More
This is an application for condonation of late filing of an appeal by Chidhuza (the applicant).
The requirements which an applicant has to satisfy in such applications have been clearly stated in numerous cases. These are:-
- The degree of non-compliance;
- The explanation for the non-compliance;
- The importance of the case
- The prospects of success in the main matter;
- Interest in the finality of the case;
- The convenience to the Court and respondent. More
On 12 October 2023 we delivered an ex tempore judgment dismissing the appellant’s appeal and upholding the respondent’s cross appeal with costs. The following are the full reasons informing that decision. We supply them at the instance of the appellant who has since made a written request for the same. More
On 30 November 2011, and after hearing viva voce evidence from the plaintiff and considering the fairly detailed submissions made by the plaintiff’s counsel I granted the following order: More
This is an appeal against the determination of the respondent’s Appeals Committee issued on 11 April 2019, which upheld the appellant’s dismissal from employment. More
