The OK Grand Challenge Jackpot promotion has become an exciting annual national event to many Zimbabweans as it affords many lucky winners a rare opportunity to win various prices ranging from motor vehicles, residential stands and an assortment of other items. It is an event which is aggressively advertised both in the print and electronic media. More
This is a chamber application for an order for condonation of late filing of an application for leave to appeal made in terms of r 35(1) of the Constitutional Court Rules, 2016 (“the Rules”). More
This is an appeal against the whole judgment of the High Court (“the court a quo”) handed down on 7 July 2022 in which it declined to assume jurisdiction in respect of an application filed by the appellant for the review of the recommendations of the second, third and fourth respondents in accordance with which the first respondent removed her from the office of Judge of the High Court. More
This is an application brought in terms of s 167 (2) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe, 2013 (“the Constitution”). The applicant seeks a declarator that the President failed to fulfil a constitutional obligation within the contemplation of the Constitution when he removed the applicant from the office of Judge of the High Court on 17 June 2021. The removal was pursuant to what the applicant considers was an invalid and unlawful recommendation by a tribunal appointed by the President to look into the question of her removal from office. The applicant further seeks, as consequential relief, an order setting aside... More
This is an appeal against the whole judgment of the High Court (the court a quo)
in which it dismissed the appellant`s urgent chamber application wherein she sought an interdict to prevent the first respondent (the President) from establishing a Tribunal in terms of s 187 (3) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe, 2013 (‘the Constitution’). More
[1] This is an appeal against the whole judgment of the High Court (the ‘court a quo’) wherein the court granted a provisional order in an urgent chamber application made by the respondent. The court a quo ordered that a motor vehicle in the possession of the appellant be placed under judicial attachment pending the return day of the provisional order. The court further interdicted both the appellant and the respondent from using the motor vehicle pending the determination of the matter. More
The applicant was a judge of the High Court until the 17 June 2021 when she was removed from office by the 1st respondent in terms of s 187(7) as read with s 187(8) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (No 20) Act 2013 [ hereinafter the Constitution].
The respondents in this matter are the President of the Republic of Zimbabwe cited in his official capacity (1st respondent); Simbi Veke Mubako [Chairperson of the Tribunal which enquired into the question of applicant’s removal] (2nd respondent); Charles Warara [member of the Tribunal] (3rd respondent); Yvonne Masvora [member of Tribunal] (4th respondent);... More
The appellant was employed as a data capturing clerk by the respondent in July 2005. She rose through the ranks to the position of senior accounts clerk. More
This is an application brought through the urgent chamber book wherein the applicant seeks an interim interdict temporarily halting the referral of the question of her removal as judge of the High Court to the 1st respondent in terms of s187(3) of the Constitution. In a nutshell the applicant’s position is that the contemplated referral is not only deeply flawed procedurally but also that if allowed to stand it will create a dangerous precedent in that it poses a serious threat to the independence of the judiciary. More
This is an appeal against the decision of the Respondent’s Appeals Committee which upheld the dismissal of the Appellant on charges of assaulting a fellow employee.
Facts of the case are that, on 30th March 2010 Appellant who was in the employ of the Respondent company as a Quality Assurance Manager came into contact with one Marlon Muponda a General Hand also employed by the Respondent Company in circumstances where it was concluded that she assaulted Marlon. More
This is an application for direct access to this Court made in terms of s 167(5) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe, 2013 (“the Constitution”), as read with r 21 of the Constitutional Court Rules, 2016 (“the Rules”).
The applicant intends to approach the Court in terms of s 85(1) of the Constitution, seeking an order that his rights as enshrined in the Constitution were infringed by the first respondent’s non-executive board members, its board, the arbitrators’ awards, Labour Court judgments, and the Supreme Court. The rights so infringed being:
• The right to equal protection of the law in terms... More
1. The applicant approached this Court On 24 January 2024 I issued an ex tempore judgment in which I struck the matter off the roll with no order as to costs. The applicant has requested for full reasons for the judgment. These are they:
2. seeking condonation for the late noting of an appeal for non-compliance with r 59 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2018 (“the rules”) and extension of time within which to appeal. The application was unopposed as the respondent did not file any opposing papers. After hearing the applicant and having considered the written documents filed of... More
This is an application for referral of constitutional issues to the constitutional court in terms of section 175 (4) of the constitution of Zimbabwe, Amendment (No 20) Act, 2013.
A brief history of this matter will be necessary to appreciate the nature of the matter that is giving rise to this application. More
The matter was placed before me as an appeal/cross-appeal against an arbitral award handed down by Honourable Mucheche on 28 October, 2010. For convenience the Appellant/Cross-Respondent shall be referred to as Appellant whereas the Respondent/Cross Appellant shall be referred as Respondent. More
The applicant was employed by the respondent as its Chief Executive Officer. On 27 October 2010 he obtained an arbitral award against the respondent under the Labour Act [Cap 28:01] in the following terms:
“In the final analysis therefore, I order that respondent pay the claimant as follows:
1. Backpay and benefits in the sum of US$19 384-09
2. Cash in lieu of leave
3. Sixty (60) months salary from 26 January 2010 as damages for loss of employment in the sum of US$60 540-00
4. Sixty (60) months salary as punitive damages in the sum of US$60 540-00
5.... More
