This is an application for review of the decision of the Acting Registrar made in terms of section 45 of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01].
The facts in this case are common cause. The first respondent applied to the second respondent for a variation of the scope and operation of the trade union. The second respondent published the notice as required in the Gazettegiving the statutory notice. Thereafter the second respondent proceeded to grant the application. The applicants are dissatisfied with that decision and have approached this court for relief. More
This matter came on appeal. Before the appeal could be argued, four (4) preliminary issues were taken on behalf of the respondent. These are that:
“(a) The grounds of appeal are vague and embarrassing in the sense that they challenge decisions of committees without identifying the committees so referred to and also without linking each of the grounds to the respective committee’s decision.
(b) The grounds of appeal ought to be struck off since they proceeded on the mistaken view that the appeals committee made findings of fact and exercised discretion.
(c) The prayer is defective in that it seeks... More
In more than three quarters of the opposed court applications filed in this court, respondents raise one or more preliminary points. This is one such case. In some instances, preliminary points are argued to greater length than the merits of the case itself. This invariably results in judgments to dispose the preliminary points which may either succeed or fail. In casu, the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 6th and 7th respondents raised a number of preliminary points which are subject of this judgment. More
[ 1] Plaintiff, a peregrine entity, seeks to recover monies lent and advanced to first defendant, a local company. The second and third defendants were sued in their capacity as sureties and co-principal debtors.
[ 2] Plaintiff closed its case after the testimony of its single-Mrs Melina Matshiya-a senior legal practitioner. Mr. Uriri for the defendants moved the court to grant absolution from the instance. Counsel premised his application on two arguments;-(a) that plaintiff had tendered no evidence at all before the court. Mrs Matshiya, its representative and sole witness lacked valid authority to represent it and was as such,... More
PATEL J: This matter arises from a collision that occurred on 20 July 2009 between the plaintiff’s truck and a motor vehicle driven by the 1st defendant’s deceased husband. The plaintiff claims the replacement value of its vehicle, damages for loss of income and goods, together with interest and costs of suit More
DUBE-BANDA J:The Applicant seeks the evictionof the first respondent and all those claiming the right of occupation through her from an immovable property located on registered Site number 740, which is said to be a site for housing containing no more than 12ha held in connection with the Mining Location, named Big Ben under registration number 32538 (the housing site). The application is opposed by the first respondent More
On 5 June 2012 I handed down an ex tempore judgment for the registration of an arbitral award made in favour of the applicant against the respondent on the basis that there was no merit in the opposition to such registration. More
On 14 May 2020, the respondent, as the plaintiff filed summons in case number HC 2315/20 against the applicant, as the first defendant, claiming payment of US$596 422.86 with interest and costs. It alleged that the said amount was what the applicant owed due to a breach of contract to supply diesel to the respondent. The diesel supply agreement related to the Hwange Power Station (600MW) Expansion Project. The second defendant in that action was cited as Dynamic Success Southern Africa (Pty) Ltd. The applicant defended the claim and also filed a claim in reconvention against the respondent for payment... More
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
