This matter was set down for hearing on the opposed roll on 8 June 2022. On that date, respondent had not served applicant with her heads of argument which were said to have been filed on the 25th of January 2022. Applicant therefore raised a preliminary point to the effect that respondent is barred for non-compliance with r59 (20) of SI 202/2021 for failure to serve her heads of argument immediately after filing of the aforesaid heads of argument. More
On 10 February 2021, applicant filed this urgent chamber application seeking relief set out in the draft provisional order 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. Pending determination of the ordinary application for review which is to be filed within 5 days of the resumption of filing of normal court business.
2. That 3rd and 4th Respondent shall pay costs of suit on the higher scale of attorney and client.
INTERIM RELIEF GRANTED
1. Pending the return date, the... More
Applicant seeks the following interim relief:
“Pending the final determination of this matter the applicant is granted the following interim relief:-
That the first and second respondents and their followers be and are hereby interdicted from conducting church services in properties controlled by the applicant, or interfering with the business and ministry of the applicant.
That the second respondent be and is hereby interdicted from holding himself out as a Bishop of the applicant, and conducting his ministry as such.” More
This is an application for the transfer of Stand number 979 Dulibadzimu, Beitbridge held under Deed of Transfer No. 895/2010 from the first respondent to the applicant and for the second respondent to be ordered to uplift the caveat it had placed on the said property. More
Appellant was employed as a teacher by the Respondent. Following allegations of misconduct, he was brought before a Disciplinary Committee which found him guilty and recommended his dismissal. Appellant is dissatisfied with the decision and has approached this Court for relief. More
CHITAPI J: At the end of hearing of this application on 12 December, 2024 I issued an order as follows
“IT IS ORDERED THAT
1. The respondent is ordered to halt and cease all mining activities along Angwa River until the respondent has obtained the requisite environmental impact certificate and the go ahead to mine in the area by the applicant.
2. Nor order as to costs. More
The second applicant, in his capacity as a director of the first applicant, entered into an agreement of sale of motor vehicles with the first respondent. In terms of this agreement, the first respondent sold to the applicants 7 motor vehicles, mainly steel body tippers, for a total amount of US $ 335 000.00.
Pursuant to the agreement, the applicants made some payments, leaving a balance of US $ 215 000.00. Sometime in July 2021, the second applicant signed an acknowledgement of debt on behalf of the first applicant for the amount of US $215 000.00. The acknowledgment of debt... More
AMBALI vs BATA SHOE COMPANY 1999 (1) ZLR 417 (S)
that a dismissed employee has a duty to mitigate his loss by looking for alternative employment. This duty arises immediately upon dismissal.
It is also an established principle of the law that he who asserts bears the onus of proof. In computation of damages it is the claimant who bears the onus to prove his claim by adducing evidence. More
Applicant filed this application as an Urgent Chamber Application seeking the following order:
(1) That the execution of the eviction ordered under SC 138/21 and allowed to continue under HH 83/22 be allowed pending finalization of the appeal under CV SC 63/22.
(2) That the first respondent pays applicant’s costs of suit on the higher scale of legal practitioner and client. More
[ 1] Applicant seeks the rescission of a judgment entered against it in default in terms of rule 49 of the High Court Rules 2021.According to applicant, the parties` present legal troubles are traceable to the second respondent, Edmore Makureya (“Edmore”). Edmore was applicant`s former (presumably the relationship ended) employee who committed a series of misrepresentations in order to procure goods (on credit) from first respondent. Edmore would place orders with first respondent then collect goods under the guise that he was acting for and on behalf of applicant. Edmore covered his tracks by effecting payment for the goods so... More
The plaintiff seeks an order in terms of s 318 (1) of the Companies Act [Chapter 24:03] for the defendant to be declared jointly and severally liable with Foldaway Investments (Pvt) Ltd for all the debts of Foldaway Investment (Pvt) Ltd to the plaintiff. The provision reads as follows.
Responsibility of directors and other persons for fraudulent conduct of business
(1) If at any time it appears that any business of a company was being carried on—
(a) recklessly; or
(b) with gross negligence; or
(c) with intent to defraud any person or for any fraudulent purpose;
the court may,... More
This is an application to compel the respondent to comply with the decision of an adjudicator in terms of Clause W1.4 of the engineering and construction contract between the parties. More
This is an application for leave to appeal against a decision of this court issued on 10 October 2014. The respondent was employed by the applicant as a site quantity surveyor on 17 February 2012. It is alleged that he stopped going to work in March 2013 only to report for work in June 2013 demanding his salary. The appellant contended that the respondent had repudiated his contract by failing to report for work. On 6 June 2013 the respondent’s contract of employment was terminated. More
The Applicant was employed as the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) by the first Respondent. Applicant had been employed by the 1st Respondent in February 1985 initially as an Internal Auditor. He later became first Respondent’s Group Chief Accountant, the Group Financial Controller and the General Manager Finance and Investments. In 2004, he was appointed to the position of Chief Executive Officer. He reported directly to the Board of Directors. More
MAKONESE J: This is an application for the late noting of an appeal. The application is opposed by the state on the grounds that there are no reasonable prospects of success. Further and in any event, there are no recognizable grounds of appeal in the application and no reasonable explanation has been advanced for the failure to note the appeal timeously. More
