The background to the above claim(s) is that on 13 June 2010 the defendant assaulted the plaintiff. The plaintiff lost a tooth as a result of the assault. The defendant was arrested and later convicted in court for the offence of assault. He was fined $400 or 12 months imprisonment in case of failure to pay the fine. 4 months of the sentence were suspended for 5 years on condition the defendant did not, during the period of suspension, commit any offence warranting imprisonment without the option of a fine. More
The applicant filed an urgent chamber application seeking interim relief pending the return day, which required:
1. The 1st respondent to be compelled to grant the applicant access to the property called Stand 22 Broadmead Estate Township of Stand 2 Broadmead Estate Township, known as 22 Rubidge Close, Hoggart Hill, Harare (hereinafter referred to as “the property”), immediately or upon the granting of this order. Failing compliance, the applicant asked the court to authorize the 2nd respondent to take measures that would allow the applicant access to the property.
2. The 1st respondent to be interdicted from selling or transferring... More
On 12 September 2011, this court, per KUDYA J, issued a provisional order in favour of the applicant, a human rights activist, who had certain items of his property seized by unnamed officials of Harare International Airport in the early hours of 10 September 2011 as he tried to board a flight enroute to a Human Rights Defenders Conference in Dublin , Republic of Ireland. More
This is an appeal against refusal of bail pending appeal filed in terms of s 121 (2) (b) of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act [Chapter 9:07
On 12 October 2020 the appellant was convicted at Nyanga Magistrate Court for contravening s 368 (1) as read with s 368 (4) of the Mines and Minerals Act after a plea of guilty. He was sentenced to the mandatory sentence of 2 years imprisonment.
On 15 October 2020 he filed a Notice of Appeal against conviction where in principle the appellant contended that the court a quo failed to sufficiently explain the... More
This is an application for leave to execute the judgment of KARWI J issued on 21 March 2012 in favour of the applicant against the 3 respondents jointly and severally for payment of $6264-75 being costs of repairing a commuter omnibus and $17 840-00 being damages for loss of income together with interest on both sums at the prescribed rate from the date of summons to date of payment and costs of suit. More
This is an application for the setting aside of an Arbitral Award that was handed down by the first respondent which Arbitral Award is dated the 7th of August 2017 and was only availed to the applicant’s legal practitioners on 12 September 2017. The application is based on the applicant’s view that the afore-said award offends the public policy of Zimbabwe.
It is settled law that an arbitral award ought to be set aside if its enforcement would offend the public policy of the land. See ZESA v Maphosa 1999 (2) ZLR 452 at p 466 where it was held... More
The second, third and fourth respondents did not appear for the hearing. They filed a document stating that they would abide by the decision of the court in these proceedings. More
Applicants have approached this court through an urgent chamber application for the following relief per provisional order whose terms have been couched as follows:
“TERMS OF FINAL ORDER SOUGHT
i) An order to allow the classing of all Religion under the essential services as already enshrined in our constitution is now and hereby granted.
ii) That worship and prayer services in groups and sizes that are manageable say 30 or 20 people or less be now and hereby allowed at least once a week while observing all other rules and regulations to curb the spread of the Corona virus.
iii)... More
The appellant in this case was employed as a teacher by the respondent.
He was accused of having proposed love to a school girl and sexually harassing the girl who was doing form 4 at Chikwira High School. More
This is an opposed application which I ultimately dealt with as an unopposed application for the reasons I shall herein later outline.
The applicants seek an order in the following terms:-
“IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1. The Agreement of Sale entered into between Oliver Chitsinde purportedly acting on behalf of the applicants and the Government of Zimbabwe on 21 July 2007 be and is hereby declared null and void (sic)
2. The first respondent and or the Government of Zimbabwe and all those calling through them shall forthwith vacate Lot 5 of GA Helensvale, failing which the Deputy Sheriff with... More
In this application the relief sought is as follows:
“It is ordered that:
1. The applicants be and are hereby restored to full occupation of Stand Number 57 Borrowdale Township 6 of Lot 7b of Borrowdale, also known as number 9 Hunt Road Borrowdale within five (5) days of granting of this order. More
This judgment is in respect of two appeals which were consolidated for the purposes of the hearing. The first matter, under CRB MB-CD 1981/22 is an appeal against the sentence imposed upon the appellant following conviction on two counts of unlawful entry in aggravating circumstances. In the first count the appellant was sentenced to 36 months imprisonment of which six months imprisonment was suspended for three years on condition of good behaviour, and a further six months imprisonment was suspended on condition of restitution. In the second count the appellant was sentenced to 36 months imprisonment of which six months... More
Appellant was dismissed from Respondent’s employment for flouting provisions of the Respondent’s Code of Conduct.
The disciplinary proceedings that led to the dismissal were conducted in terms of Varichem Laboratories (Pvt) Ltd. Code of Conduct (THE CODE) which was duly registered by the then Ministry of Public Service, Labour and Social Welfare on the 17th June 1994. More
The two applicants lodged this application to compel the first respondent to supply the applicants with further and better particulars to enable the applicants to plead to some of the first respondent’s particulars of claim. The second to the twelfth respondents were cited in these proceedings for purposes of just informing them of the steps that have been taken since they are the applicants’ co-defendants in the matter under Case Number HC 10679/16.
The facts are that the applicants and the second and twelfth respondents were jointly and severally sued by the first respondent for the payment of the sum... More
