The applicant is seeking an order in the following terms:
“1. The 1st and 2nd respondents’ failure to furnish the applicant with reasons for their decisions is unlawful and wrongful.
2. The applicant’s discharge from the police service is accordingly set aside.
3. The respondents are ordered to reinstate the applicant into the police service forthwith.
4. The respondents are ordered to pay costs of suit on a punitive scale.” More
This judgment is to be read together with the judgment HH 417-22 which was delivered on 28 June 2022 dealing with a point in limine raised by the respondent to effect that the application ought to be dismissed because there are material disputes of fact not capable of resolution. In that judgment, I set out the facts on which this application is based. It was necessary to do so because the court could not have properly determined whether the applicant’s case was comprised of irresolvable material disputes of facts without setting out the facts of the case and considering them.... More
On the turn, I granted an order finding the respondents in contempt of an order of this court and committed the second and third respondents to prison and there to be held until the order of this court, granted on 13 February 2008 is complied with or set aside, whichever occurs sooner. The committal of the second and third respondents was suspended for four days from the date of service of the order upon each of them to give them an opportunity to purge their contempt. More
The appellant and the first respondent have engaged in a litany of disputes in the court a quo, all related to their respective entitlements to the mining claims that they operate on. The two mining claims are situate in Insiza District, Matebeleland South and are adjacent to each other. The appellant is the holder of mining claims known as Tigress, while the first respondent has been conducting mining operations on claims known as Lion West 25. More
This is an appeal against the decision of the Magistrate Court sitting at Harare in which the court dismissed the appellant’s claim and upheld the counter-claim by the respondent.
The facts of the case are that on 11 June 2014 the appellant and the respondent entered into an agreement of sale of land. This was during the multi-currency era. The property was sold in United States dollars. The agreed purchase price was US$60 000.00. The agreed terms of payment were that the respondent was to pay the appellant a deposit of US$18 000.00 followed by monthly instalments of US$691.00 for... More
The bare bones of the matter are these: The respondent issued summons against the applicant on 30 November, 2010 in case number HC 8728/10, claiming $6 369-35. The applicant entered appearance to defend via its erstwhile legal practitioners Messrs Bruce Mujeyi Manokore Attorneys. The applicant through its then legal practitioners was served with a notice to plead on 26 January, 2011. The applicant did not enter a plea and the respondent applied for default judgment on 2 March, 2011. The order was duly granted on 31 March, 2011 and issued on 28 April, 2011. More
This is an application for rescission of a default judgment issued on 28 April 2011. The back ground is that respondent issued summons on 30 November 2010 in Case No. HC 8728/10 against applicant claiming the sum of $6 369.35 together with interest at the prescribed rate from July 2010 to date of payment in full. More
On 12 January 2023, I delivered an order in favour of the applicant validating the title deed issued under Deed of Transfer No. 4106/2010. The first and fifth respondents requested for the reasons of the order. Thus, this judgment is an exploration of the reasons for the 12 January order. More
At the conclusion of submissions by counsel, the Court delivered a unanimous ex-tempore judgment. Counsel for the first respondent has now requested written reasons for the ex-tempore judgment.
2. It was couched as follows:
“We hereby present the unanimous decision of the court.
(a) This is an appeal against the whole judgment of the High Court (the court a quo), in which it struck off the roll an urgent application seeking to interdict the respondent from evicting the appellant from a certain farm known as the Remainder of West Hay Sabona Bon without a court order.
(b) The court a... More
This is an urgent chamber application in which the interim relief sought is that 1st respondent be barred and interdicted from evicting the applicant from a certain farm known as “the remainder of Westhey, Sabonabon Estate, Kadoma arbitrarily without a court order. As a final order, it is prayed that the provisional order be confirmed with respondents paying costs. More
In this case, the respondent alleges that he was employed by the appellant on 5 August 2011 up to October 2014. That he was guarding the respondent’s trucks and that a wage of $140-00 per month was agreed between the parties. More
This is an application for leave to appeal against a provisional judgmentfor the release of trust funds which I granted in favour of the respondent on an urgent basis on 8 June 2016. More
The facts of the matter are largely common cause. The appellant was employed by the respondent as a Test Technician. On 31 March 2015, around 7.30 a.m. he was in the factory, together with some other workers, when Mr Dumisani Mhlanga, came to the section where they were working. This was at the shrink wrap section. Mr D. Mhlanga, referred to in the minutes of the hearing as Dumi, is the Manufacturing Executive in the respondent’s firm. It is not clear whether Dumi passed by the appellant’s work section fortuitously or had actually gone there to supervise the workers. Whatever... More
This is an appeal against the judgment of the magistrate sitting at Harare in which he granted an order for the eviction of the appellants from certain premises
owned by the government. More
Respondent was employed by the appellant bank as a bank teller. She was charged for failure to comply with standing instructions or follow established procedures resulting in a substantial loss to the Bank. This was a violation of Category D (17) of the applicable Code.Disciplinary proceedings were conducted against her and she was dismissed. The facts of the case arethat the respondent approved a transaction, and in terms of the standing instructions she referred the client to the next appropriate bank employee. Thereafter the client or the application was referred to her superiors. The superior approved a withdrawal of forty... More
