Introduction. This is an application for bail which is necessitated by the termination of bail by the operation of law after an accused has pleaded to the charge. An accused person may be re-admitted to bail, on similar or other conditions that the court may in its discretion consider. It is my view that admission to bail pending trial and to bail once trial has commenced, are inquiries what are based on different considerations, because the circumstances will have changed. The basis on which bail is opposed pre-trial are not necessarily the same as that on which it is opposed... More
In 1989 the plaintiff and defendant married each other in terms of customary law. Their marriage was however not registered. After a period of about ten years living together in the manner of husband and wife they decided to have their marriage solemnized in terms of the Marriages Act [Cap 5:11] of the Laws of Zimbabwe. Their marriage was thus solemnized on 11 February 1999 at Harare in terms of the Marriages Act. That marriage still subsists. More
An order for civil imprisonment is hereby granted in favor of the plaintiff
2. The Sheriff for Zimbabwe, or his deputy, is ordered to arrest the defendant, George Frangoulis of 86 Maungwe Street, Rusape, Zimbabwe, for a period of 90 (Ninety) days in the Remand Prison and deliver him together with a copy of this writ, to the Prison at Remand, where he shall be kept until:
(a) Defendant has paid the judgment debt, together with the interest and costs that are due or
(b) The period of 90 (ninety) days form the dater of his delivery to the prison... More
This is an appeal against the decision of the Negotiating Committee for the National Employment Council for the Commercial Sectors (Negotiating Committee) handed down on 10 December 2019. The Negotiating Committee upheld the conviction of the appellant on a charge of misconduct levelled against him, and his consequent dismissal from employment. More
Appellant was dismissed from Respondent’s employment as a data capture clerk on allegations of contravening the Respondent company code of conduct. He appealed to the internal appeal structures without success. He has now appealed to this court against both the guilt verdict and the dismissal penalty which were confirmed by the Respondent’s internal appeals body. More
At the onset of oral argument in this Court respondent raised a point in limine which appellant opposed. The point was that appellant filed 2 documents which were not part of the proceedings in the tribunals a quo. It is expatiated in respondent’s heads of argument as follows:
“10. The first document purportedly signed on the 23rd of November 2019 seeks to suggest that cash deposits of RTGS $400 and RTGS $1 700 had been authorised by Susan Togarepi, also known as Susan Nyaradzo Mushaike, whilst the second document purportedly signed on the 25th of November 2019 seeks to suggest... More
Appellant appealed to this Court against his dismissal from employment by Respondent. The appeal was made in terms of Section 92D of the Labour Act Chapter 28:01. Respondent opposed the appeal. More
This is an appeal against the decision of the Chief Executive Officer finding appellant guilty and dismissing her from work on allegations of misconduct at the work place. Brief facts of the matter are that appellant who was in the respondent’s employment was charged with misconduct emanating from the facts that she had acted negligently and caused loss of the employer’s ticket book. She was found guilty of the infraction. She appealed to the Chief Executive Officer without success hence the instant appeal. More
In this Urgent Chamber Application the applicant sought the following order,
“1. The Respondent and all persons claiming occupation, rights, tittle and interests through him shall remove or cause the removal of themselves and all such persons occupying the portion of Plot 13 of Sale Camp Farm purportedly identified as Stand 13 B of Sale Camp Farm.
2. Failing such removal the Sheriff of High Court be and is hereby authorised and directed to evict the Respondent and all persons claiming occupation, right; title and interests through him.
3. The Respondent and all persons claiming occupation right, tittle and interests... More
The applicant filed this application in terms of Order 32 Rule 226 of the High Court Rules 1971. I must say that the rule relates to the making of any application of whatever nature. In paragraphs 4 and 10 of her founding affidavit, applicant states that the application seeks to have a document, or an alleged agreement between “the Chikono family” and David Mahewu, be declared null and void in so far as it purports to vest rights of ownerhip of No. 7 Fernspruit Township of Essexvale Estate, Umzingwane District to 1st respondent (David Mahewu). It is in that regard,... More
On 29 September 2016 the applicant appeared in the Magistrates Court sitting at Mutare facing a charge of unlawfully possessing a specially protected animal, namely a pangolin in contravention of s 45 (1) (b) as read with s 128 of the General Laws Amendment Act (GN 148/2011) of the Parks and Wildlife Act [Chapter 20:14]. In short, the applicant in the company of 4 accomplices had approached a police officer who was disguised as a potential buyer with the intention of selling two live pangolins. The applicant was actually carrying one of the pangolins. They got arrested. The applicant pleaded... More
The applicant seeks a declaratur that;
1) The Water (Permits) Amendment Regulations, 2015 (No. 5) published under Statutory Instrument 52/2015 on 24 April 2015 by the third respondent is ultra vires the Water Act [Chapter 20:24] and is accordingly invalid and of no force and effect. More
In this application the applicant applies for bail pending appeal based on changed circumstances following the dismissal of his previous application by MUREMBA J on 13 December, 2017 in a judgment recorded as HH 216/18. On 22 February, 2018, the applicant acting in person, filed an application which was however withdrawn by his legal practitioners after assuming agency. They then filed the present application on 2 March, 2018. The legal practitioners requested of MUREMBA J for reasons for her order dismissing the previous application. MUREMBA J duly supplied the said reasons as judgment HH 216/18 as already indicated. On 12... More
At the end of hearing argument for both parties, the Court dismissed the application with costs on the legal practitioner and client scale. It was indicated that reasons for the decision would follow in due course. More
Appellant appealed to this Court against her dismissal from employment by Respondent. She was charged with seven (7) counts of misconduct. These were violations of Group D – Most serious offences – category 25. She was acquitted of four of the counts but found guilty on 3 of the counts.Her ground of appeals were three- fold as follows,
“1. The Grievances and Disciplinary Committee erred and misdirected itself in finding Appellant guilty of Count 1 of the charges, as the duties she is charged with do not fall into duties assigned either expressly or tacitly.
2. The Grievances and Disciplinary... More
