On 16 January 2023, I gave a brief ex-tempore judgement partially granting the relief sought by the applicant. The respondent has since requested for the full reasons for that decision and what follows are those reasons. More
The plaintiff and the defendant are husband and wife. They were married on the 7th of September 2018 in terms of the then Marriage Act [Chapter 5:11]. One child was born to the marriage, namely Simbarashe Tadzidza Tapera who was born on 9 April 2019. The parties have been on separation since the 31st of December 2019 and the defendant has custody of the minor child. On the 7th of October 2021, the plaintiff instituted divorce proceedings in which he seeks a decree of divorce on grounds of irretrievable breakdown of the marriage. He wants the defendant to retain custody... More
Applicant applied to this Court for condonation of a belated appeal in terms of Rule 22 of the Labour Court Rules S.I. 150/17. Respondents opposed the application. I shall deal with the application under 2 subtitles. More
The chamber application was made ostensibly in “terms of rules 32(2) and 12 of the Constitutional Court Rules, 2016” (“the Rules”). The applicant sought an order for leave to appeal from the ruling of a magistrate denying him a referral to the Constitutional Court (“the Court”) of four questions for determination. Rule 32(2) of the Rules provides that “a litigant who is aggrieved by the decision of a subordinate court on a constitutional matter can apply to the Constitutional Court for leave to appeal against such decision”. More
On 20 October 2010 my brother UCHENA J granted a provisional order in favour of the applicant couched in this vein:-
“INTERIM RELIEF GRANTED:
Pending the final determination of this matter, the applicant is granted the following interim relief:
(a) That the first respondents (sic) and all those claiming through them (sic) and acting under his instructions be and is hereby ordered not to disturb, disrupt or interfere, directly or indirectly, in any way with the applicant’s farming, agricultural and business operations and use of the rehabilitated and renovated borehole on state land adjacent to the applicant’s Plot Number 8... More
This application was placed before me through the chamber book seeking a curious order couched in the following terms:
“It is ordered that:
1. The trial de novo ordered by the Honourable Justice ZHOU on 3 October 2012 under case number HC 5594/11, Ref case CA 44-5/10, Ref case no. CRB R479/05 refers to trial de novo already commenced and mentioned in para 1 of Justice MTSHIYA’s High Court Consent Order granted on 20 January 2010 under case No. HC 265/10 ref case No. CA 44-5/10, ref case No. CRB R 479/05. More
On 29th March 2012 the Honourable Y Malama made an arbitration award. In terms thereof, she nullified the demotion of Respondent by Appellant. Appellant was aggrieved by the ruling. It then filed an appeal to this Court against the award. More
The applicant filed and argued this bail application as a self-actor. The arresting detail and the investigating officer adduced evidence for the respondent. The former opposed the applicant’s release on bail while the latter consented to the same. Counsel for the respondent had filed a written response opposing the application. However, in light of the testimony of the investigating officer, the respondent’s representative, in her oral submissions, consented to the release of the applicant on bail pending trial. More
The appellant is a licensed telecommunications company in terms of the Postal and Telecommunications Act [Chapter 12:05]. The respondent is an administrative body established in terms of the Revenue Authority Act [Chapter 23:11] and tasked with the collection of revenues due in terms of the Act, among other things. An audit carried out in 2018 by the respondent on the affairs of the appellant revealed that the appellant had paid fees to several non-resident persons without deducting the withholding tax required by s 30 of the Act as read with the Seventeenth Schedule (“the Schedule”) thereto. As a result of... More
This is an application for setting aside the interim liquidation and distribution accounts pertaining to the Applicants which were lodged by the second respondent in the estate late Edward Nyanyiwa, DR471/19. The accounts were confirmed by the 1st Respondent. More
KABASA J: This is an application for the dismissal of the respondents’ application filed under case number HC 1425/16 for want of prosecution. The application is in terms of Order 32 Rule 236 (3) (b) of the High Court Rules, 1971.
The background facts are these: The respondents filed a court application seeking a declaratur of mining rights and cancellation of the special mining grant SG 5751 issued in favour of the applicant. The application was filed on 7th June 2016 and served on the applicant in 2017. The applicant duly filed a notice of opposition together with an opposing... More
In this application, Applicant seeks an order for the payment of arrear salaries and allowances, terminal benefits, severance package, punitive damages and costs of suit. All this amounts to a total of US$132 574.00 as shown on the computations submitted to the Labour Officer who handled the conciliation. More
This is an appeal against sentence. The first and third appellants were convicted of one count of assault while the second appellant was convicted of two counts of assault as defined in s 89 of the Criminal Law (Codificationand Reform Act) [Cap 9.23] after pleading guilty to their respective counts. They were jointly tried.The facts are that all the three appellants firstly assaulted the first complaint and then the second appellant assaulted the second complainant alone on the 8 October, 2011. In respect of the second appellant, both counts were treated as one for purposes of sentence. All the appellants... More
This is an appeal against the decision of the National Employment Council Appeals Committee “NEC Appeals Committee”.
The facts of the case are common cause. The respondent was employed as a cementer by the appellant.
On 8 October 2014 one Max an employee of appellant during his course of work intended to serve the workers’ committee representatives with certain documents. It was alleged that Max engaged the chairman of the worker’s committee, who invited the rest of the workers’ committee members and other employees. More
On 12 December 2014 the appellant dismissed the respondent from employment following disciplinary proceedings.
An Internal appeal was unsuccessful. He appealed to the National Employment Council Appeals Committee, ‘the Committee’. The Committee found that the respondent committed a less serious offence, and ordered that the penalty of dismissal be set aside and substituted by a final written warning. The appellant was therefore to reinstate the respondent and in the alternative pay damages. More
