This judgment relates to an application for condonation of the late filing of a founding affidavit in an application for rescission of judgment and an application for the rescission of the judgment which was made in the respondent (employee’s) favour in default of the applicant (employer). More
This is an application for rescission of a judgment handed down in a case where the respondent employees had applied for quantification of damages due to them following an order by the Labour Court that they be reinstated to their original positions without loss of benefits and pay.
Background to the matter is that the respondents who were in the applicant’s employ were charged with acts of misconduct at the workplace. Following their disciplinary hearing they were dismissed from employment. They appealed against their dismissal and ended up at the Labour Court appealing against that dismissal. At the Labour Court... More
This is an application for rescission of default judgement.
The background facts are that on 22 September 2020 the applicant was served with a copy of summons issued by the respondent. On 24 September 2020 the applicant entered an appearance to defend. On 27October 2020 the applicant filed its plea and counter claim. On 4 December 2020 this court granted a default judgment against the applicant for failure to file a plea. This was clearly as a result a result of misfiling by the Registrar’s office hence the plea and counter claim were not recorded at the time the Court... More
This is an urgent chamber application for an interdict for stay of a disciplinary hearing before the first respondent pending an appeal which is before the second respondent. The background to the application is as follows. On 7 August 2018 MUREMBA J granted a provisional order under Case No. HC 7145/18 (hereinafter referred to as “the order”)which suspended the decision and directive of the first respondent dated 26 July 2018. The order was made pending the applicants’ appeal dated 3 August 2018 before the second respondent and interdicted the first respondent from interfering with the normal day to day business... More
This case demonstrates what befalls a matter between various parties if it is not pursued to finality expeditiously. It also shows what a change of legal practitioners entails where subsequent practitioners have no inkling of the previous processes. More
This is an appeal against a determination by the Respondent Appeals Authority handed down on the 12th of February 2015 but received by Appellant on the 2nd March 2015. The appeal is opposed.
The Appellant was employed by the Respondent as a Shift Manager. He appeared before a Disciplinary Authority on the 10th of July, 2008 facing charges of misconduct i.e Section 4 (a) of Statutory Instrument 15 of 2006. The allegations were that the Appellant had, following a spot check, been found with a negative variance of Z$80 Billion and Z$8 billion. The Disciplinary Authority referred its determination to... More
This is an application for the respondents to be held to be in contempt of the order of Court which was granted in Case No. HC 1138/19, and for them to be sentenced to ninety days imprisonment to be suspended on condition that the respondents comply with the said order. The order in HC 1138/19 was granted on 13November 2019. The applicant seeks costs against the respondents on the legal practitioner and client scale. The application is opposed by the respondents. More
On 25th July 2021,one Nkululeko Sibanda smuggled large quantities of an assortment of goods from Botswana into Zimbabwe. The smuggled goods ranged from television sets, radio sets, shoes and solar batteries. Nkululeko was, at the relevant time, driving a Mercedes Benz registration number AFB 6413 belonging to the applicant. Applicant’s motor vehicle was intercepted by police officers from Plumtree, upon entering the country through an undesignated entry point, being a boundary fence that had been cut open for that purpose. The truck was found to have ferried uncustomed goods through the undesignated entry point. The goods and truck were seized... More
On 8 November in 2016, the plaintiffs instituted proceedings in this court against the first to third defendants. The bone of contention between the parties was a property known as Lot 2 Block MM Ardbernnie Township, measuring 1,8577 hectares (“the property”). When this matter first came before me, the parties agreed that it proceeds as a stated case in terms of Rule 52 of the High Court Rules. The statement of agreed facts filed by the parties is quite voluminous, but what can be gleaned from it is the following: More
NDEWERE J: The plaintiffs issued summons for civil imprisonment against the defendant on 13 December 2017. The summons called upon the defendant to pay $1 252 151.05 together with interest at the rate of 10% per annum calculated from 6 March 2017 to date of payment in full by virtue of a judgment of the High Court of 15 March 2017 which ordered him to pay $1 500 000.00 plus interest and costs.
The summons called upon the defendant to appear before the High Court on 10 January 2018, to show cause why an order for his civil imprisonment should... More
Appellant in this matter appealed to this court seeking an order to have the Respondent company’s decision to dismiss him following allegations of misconduct set aside.
The facts of the case are that Appellant who was employed by the Respondent company as a Senior Stores Clerk was charged on 21 October 2011 with 3 counts of contravening the Respondent’s Code of Conduct. On 28 October 2011 he was brought before the disciplinary hearing committee which deliberated his case and found him guilty on the acts of misconduct complained of. Following the guilty verdict, the Appellant was dismissed from his employment.... More
Appellants are employed by Respondent in the Department of Roads at the Mt Hampden Camp. The facts show that 2nd Appellant permitted 1st Appellant to drive a motor vehicle belonging to Respondent and the 2nd Respondent was involved in an accident leading to misconduct charges being levelled against the two. Appellants are aggrieved by their being found guilty and have appealed to this Court in terms of section 51 (1) of the Public Service Regulations, 2006, Statutory Instrument 1 of 2000. More
This is an appeal against a judgment of the High Court which dismissed with costs an interpleader application brought by the appellant in respect of certain farming equipment attached for sale in execution by the first respondent at the instance of the second respondent. After hearing counsel in the matter we dismissed the appeal with costs and indicated that our reasons would follow in due course. More
Residents of Dandazi surburb which is in Bindura are former workers of Ashanti Gold Mine. These were subjected to evictions from houses which they acquired through their employer-employee scheme the moment that they left employment at the mine. To ensure that their former employer would not evict them from, and repossess, the houses which they occupied, the residents made up their minds to speak against the evictions and/or repossession of their houses with one voice. They formed Dandazi Residence Association (“the association”). More
Plaintiff (“Addax”) is a peregrine registered in Geneva, Switzerland. It procures petroleum fuels from the United Arab Emirates, India and Russia to supply the Zimbabwean market. Defendant is a local fuel monger and recipient of fuel from Addax. More
