The decision to launch an urgent application must be thought through as this is a special procedure meant for a party in distress who needs the court’s urgent intervention lest the party suffers harm (or is facing impending harm)the consequences of which are irreversible and cause great prejudice to the party. It is not for every instance or dispute. This is because a judge allocated a matter which appears under cover of urgency has to put any other assignment aside and give his or her attention to the purported urgent matter, hence this should be worthwhile for the attainment of... More
J: The plaintiff claims $286 070.71 being outstanding balance of an exit package.
The plaintiff was employed by the defendant as a Senior Staff Officer Administration. He was put on forced leave resulting in him approaching the Labour Court seeking to revoke the suspension and reinstating him. An order by consent was granted by the Labour Court on April 2008. The plaintiff submitted that the defendant has failed to comply with the consent order and approaches the court for an order compelling the defendant to fully comply with the agreement between the parties. The defendant’s position is that the exit... More
The matter was placed before me as an application for leave to appeal against a determination handed down by this court on the 1st April, 2009. The application is opposed. More
The matter was initially placed before me on 14th March 2008 as an urgent chamber application for an order. The parties concerned however resolved to settle the matter out of court. The settlement agreement reached between the parties was later filed with the court. The court then granted an order in terms of the settlement agreement reached. More
This is an application for quantification of damages following the remittal of the matter by the Supreme Court.
At the commencement of the proceedings, Mr. Banda stated that he had a preliminary point to raise. He submitted that there was a substantive award by L. Gabilo which was quantified and is still pending. He further submitted that the same issues which had been placed before L. Gabilo were those before the Court in the present application. He averred that it was thus an incompetent application. The said the second issue alluded to the decision by L. Gabilo and he argued... More
The plaintiffs are husband and wife. The defendant is a duly registered firm of estate agents trading under the style of Stohill Properties. The plaintiffs are victims of a fraudulent sale of a property. They lost a significant sum of their hard earned income in the hope of securing a property that they would ultimately call a home upon completion of construction. The transaction involved the defendant herein as the agent of the seller. Things went horribly wrong along the way, resulting in the plaintiffs instituting proceedings against the defendant. More
This is an appeal against the whole judgment of the High Court (the court a quo) delivered at Harare on 14 October 2020 under judgment number HH – 637/20. The appeal originates from a judgment of the Magistrates Court which upheld the respondent’s claim for eviction and holding over damages against the appellant. The appellant appealed to the court a quo without success. She now appeals to this Court for relief. More
The brief background to this matter is that, the applicant sued the respondent sometime in 2007 under HC 3314/07 for specific performance and transfer of a property known as Lot 5 of the remainder of Subdivision “A” of Lichfied of Wilksden Farm (hereinafter called “the property”). Alternatively, the applicant claimed damages for breach of contract. On 4 July, the parties entered into a deed of settlement which is marked Annexure “A” and appears on pages 6-7 of the record. This deed of settlement was made an order of this court under HC 5000/08B on 29 November 2012, and the said... More
The plaintiff is the only child of the defendant, the defendant’s only other progeny, AlbertinaAurthur, also a daughter, having passed away some time back leaving only the two parties after the defendant had divorced their father, who also passed away in 2010. More
The respondent filed a court application on 13 August 2012 against 113 respondents including the 11 applicants in this matter, in case No. HC 9587/12. That application was served on the same date with the respondents or their representatives signing a copy of the court application in acknowledgment of service. More
Forum shopping is what this matter is all about. In a spectacular comedy of errors that would have made the legendary court jesters of the mediaval king’s palacegreen with envy, the applicant achieved the impressive feat over a period of about 3 years, to approach every conceivable tribunal or court that could possibly deal with her labour dispute, managing to finally land on the door step of this court virtually panting, breath less and perspiring, from the long years of travail, with what she christened a court application for a declarator that; More
: On 24 January 2022 a Court application for the registration of a Labour Court Order was filed in the matter between TakawiraMunyanyi, Amos Magoronga and Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric Aids Foundation under case No HC 436/2022. More
This is an appeal against the arbitrator’s decision where she ruled that appellant employer had underpaid respondent’s employees’ gratuity when it used the industry code calculations as opposed to the model contained in the employees’ handbook forming part of the contract and which contained more favourable provisions.
The background to the matter is that the respondent employees who were in the appellant’s employ had their contracts terminated by efluxion of time. Their contracts were to be read in conjunction with a handbook which provided for among other issues the provision or gratuity or severance upon the expiration the contract. More
The Appellant was employed by the Respondent as a canteen assistant on various fixed term contracts, the last of which terminated on the 30th of November, 2012. The Appellant thereafter referred a complaint of an unfair labour practice based on section 12B (3) (b) of the Labour [Cap 28:01] to the Labour officer. When the Labour officer failed to conciliate the matter was referred to compulsory arbitration. The arbitrator after considering the evidence and submissions made before him issued an award finding that there was no basis on which a legitimate expectation of the renewal of her award could have... More
The plaintiff issued summons out of this court seeking an order in the following terms:
1. “That plaintiff be declared the owner of stand No 6203 Mabvuku.
2. That second defendant facilitates that the first defendant cedes to the plaintiff Stand No. 6203 Mabvuku within 7 days of granting this order failure of which the Deputy Sheriff is authorized to sign all necessary documents to effect transfer into plaintiff’s name.
3. That the third defendant accepts and act on the documents signed by the deputy sheriff should first and second defendants fail to comply with clause 2.
4. That the... More
