MOYO J: At the hearing of this matter the 1st and 2nd respondents’ counsel raised points in limine the first of which was that applicants have no locus standi.
The applicants are seeking an order for the rescission of the judgment of this court in HC 2291/08 wherein this court declared that the land being the subject matter of this dispute is not subject to any acquisition. Applicants are settlers on the said piece of land. The 1st and 2nd respondents raised points in limine the first of which was challenging the locus standi of the applicants More
On 14 October 2021 I removed this matter from the roll for urgent chamber applications because I considered it not urgent. I gave my reasons ex tempore in the presence of all parties.
This court has been inundated by a glut of disputes arising fromvarious complex competing claims to stands situated atLot 12 Tynwald North owned by Mr & Mrs Sibindi. The Sibindis subdivided the property creating stands which they have sold to various persons. Unfortunately, there are numerous cases where the same stands have been sold many times over leaving claimants at each other’s throats while Mr Sibindi watches... More
The plaintiff issued summons on 8 July 2015 against the defendant claiming a sum of $26 912.27 with interest thereon at the rate of 5% per annum and costs of suit. The plaintiff further prayed for an order declaring Stand 10763 Bulawayo Township of Bulawayo Township Lands, measuring 1041 square metres (“the property”) specially executable. More
The appellant appeals against the whole judgment handed down by the High Court (the court a quo) on 1 March 2023. The court a quo ordered the appellant to pay to the respondent the sum of US$74 332.58 together with interest thereon at the rate of 5 per centum per annum from 12 December 2013 to the date of payment in full and costs of suit. More
This was an application for leave to execute pending appeal. The background was this. In April 2011 the applicant sued a company called Wedzera Petroleum [Private] Limited, as the principal debtor, jointly with the respondent, as guarantor, for payment of an amount in the sum of $847 847-65, plus interest and costs. The claim arose out of petroleum products sold and delivered by the applicant to the principal debtor in 2010. More
This is an appeal against a decision by an arbitrator. The arbitrator awarded a 20% increase to A1 engineering employees in the Engineering Sector covered by the National Employment Council for the period
1 March 2011 to 28 February 2012. More
Applicant applied to this Court for the rescission of a default judgment. The application was made in terms of Section 92C of the Labour Act Chapter 28:01 as read with Rule 40 of the Labour Court Rules, 2017. Respondents opposed the application.
After hearing oral argument the court upheld respondent’s point in limine and struck out applicant’s answering affidavit which had been filed without the Court’s leave per Rule 14 (5). More
During his tenure as Deputy Head at Kuredza Primary School, appellant was charged with acts of misconduct in terms of Section 44 (2) as read with paragraphs1, 3, 13 and 24 of the Public Service Regulations 2000, Statutory Instrument 1 of 2000.
The allegations were that:-
(a) Appellant violated procurement procedures when he sourced quotations from unreputable services providers and negotiated with one of the service providers to lower prices that resulted in price trading.
(b) He wilfully absented from work by going to attend NAAZ sporting activities from 3rdJuly, 2017 to 19th July 2017 attending regional competitions in Kenya... More
I have previously stated in Mutongwizo v The Master of the High Court N.O HH 573-18 the need for legal practitioners to comply with the rules of this court especially when the rights of minor children are at stake. This court is the upper guardian of minors by design so that there is assurance that whatever is done on behalf of minor children conforms to the best interests of the child standard. This is a standard that is recognised in the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) that Zimbabwe signed and ratified on 11 September 1990. The standard... More
This is an appeal against an arbitral award delivered on 5 January 2016. Appellant is aggrieved by the part of the award that refused her back pay up to the time the employer made the election to pay damages in lieu of reinstatement and also the part that dismissed some special and punitive damages and benefits. The arbitral award in issue states that on 10 March 2014 an award was given which ordered in paragraphs 6 and 7.
“6. That the claimant be and is hereby reinstated More
This is a rather unusual matter in which one of the issues to be resolved by this court relates to a maternity dispute. I must confess that I had for long labored under the mistaken belief that only paternity can reasonably be expected to be in dispute. More
On 25 March 2011 the plaintiff issued summons against the defendants in which he claimed:
“(a) Payment of the sum of USD14 850.00 due to the plaintiff, arising from damages which are a result of a collision between plaintiff and 1st defendant. Which collision was occasioned by 1st defendant’s negligent driving, whilst in the course of his work and scope of his authority with the 2nddefendant. The sum represents the damages plaintiff suffered.
(b) Interest thereon at the rate of 5% per annum from the date of issue of summons up to the date of full payment.
(c )Costs of... More
This is an application for condonation of the late noting of an appeal by the applicant in cases which pitted them and the respondent employer. Judgment was reserved in June 2015 on the understanding that the parties would file their heads of argument after the court had heard oral submissions. The applicants’ heads were not forthcoming until 17 March 2016 when there were brought before the court. On their face they are stamped 23 June 2015 but they did not find their way to the court in time for it to rule on the application. This explains the inordinate delay... More
Applicant applied for the review of disciplinary proceedings against him which were conducted by Respondent. Respondent opposed the application. During oral argument Applicant based his case on the improper composition of the disciplinary committee. Respondent conceded, and rightly so, that the committee was improperly constituted. Such a committee has no authority to conduct disciplinary proceedings, let alone to dismiss an employee. Authority for this proposition is found in the dicta of Sandura JA (as he then was) where he stated that an improperly constituted disciplinary committee “was a fatal irregularity which vitiated the proceedings.” More
