This application has been decided on papers without hearing oral submissions from the parties pursuant to paragraph 4 of Practice Direction 2 of 2021 headed Operational Directions on hearing urgent chamber and bail applications during the Level IV Covid-19 Lockdown period. Paragraph 4 of the said Practice Direction reads as follows:
“4) With effect from 22 January 2021, a Judge may consider and dispose of an urgent chamber or bail application on the papers without calling the parties to make oral representations or arguments…”
In casu the Applicant filed its application, the third Respondent filed his Notice of Opposition and... More
Respondent is in the employ of appellant. Respondent and other workers approached the Labour Office in 2010 alleging non-payment of wages. Honourable Arbitrator L.B. Ndlovu gave an order instructing appellant to pay the workers wages due to them. This resulted in a Certificate of Settlement being subsequently issued by the Labour Officer Madziya on 13 March 2013. More
Appellant who was in Respondent’s employ as a Cutting Room Supervisor and dismissed for gross incompetence or inefficiency (Clause 3(j)(Serious Misconduct) of the Clothing Industry Code of Conduct SI 132 of 1994) More
The two appellants were each charged with one count of fraud as defined in s 36 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act, [Cap 9:23]. They both pleaded not guilty. After a trial, they were convicted. They were each sentenced to five years imprisonment of which one year was suspended on conditions of good behaviour and a further two years were suspended on condition that they, each, make restitution in the sum of US$20 000.00 towards the complainant. They now appeal against both conviction and sentence. More
DUBEBANDA J: This is a court application for specific performance. Applicant seeks an order to compel 1st respondent to transfer into his name an immovable property being house number 1046 Chinotimba Township, Victoria Falls, and costs of suit. The application is opposed by the 1st respondent. 2nd and 3rd respondent did not file opposing papers and did not participate in these proceedings. I understand their position to be that they are content to abide by the order of this court, whatever it is. More
The applicant approached this court seeking the following relief;
1. That the respondent be and is hereby ordered to release to the applicant the cargo of 1950 cartons of bulbs 220 volts-240 volt and 975 cartons of 100 watts bulbs (220 volts-240 volts) from seizure No. 046932K dated 22 July 2015 for re-exportation to the supplier Barssa Trading (Pvt) Ltd in China and to waive storage charges within 7 days of the respondent being served of this order. More
This is an application for a declaratory order confirming Applicant’s sole beneficial ownership of Holfren Investments (Pvt) Ltd and Ontarium Investments (Pvt) Ltd. Further it is sought that this honourable court direct the Respondent to surrender all title deeds of immovable property registered in the name of Holfren Investments ( Pvt) Ltd and Ontarium Investments (Pvt) Ltd to the Applicant as per para 5 of appliant’s founding affidavit.
The relief being sought as per the draft order is as follows:- More
To bring proceedings by way of application or by way of summons is an issue that must be uppermost in the mind of each and every legal practitioner who is given instructions to approach the court for relief. While application procedure is the more expedient manner of resolving disputes, it is not always suitable. Rules and practices of this court have been set up to guide legal practitioners on when application procedure is not suitable. Numerous judgments of this and the Supreme Court have explained these rules and practices in detail and have in some instances gone to great lengths... More
The plaintiff claims from the defendants the following relief-
(a) Cancellation of the contract entered into between the parties.
(b) The return of electrical gadgets which the plaintiff claims it supplied to the defendants pursuant to the contract.
(c) Costs of suit. More
The first applicant is a trust. It is better known by its operating name Veritas. It is active in the field of human rights, the promotion of rule of law and the promotion of constitutionalism in Zimbabwe. The second and third applicants are two of its trustees. Both are citizens of Zimbabwe and registered voters. More
This is a court application for a declaratur.
The relief sought reads:
“IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1. The removal of the applicant from being a director of the respondent be and is hereby declared null and void.
2. The CR 14 dated 4 July 2014 be and is hereby declared invalid.
3. The CR 14 dated 26 October 2016 be and is hereby declared null and void
4. The respondent pays costs of suit.” More
This is an appeal against the whole judgment of the Labour Court sitting at Harare. The appellant was aggrieved by the assumption of jurisdiction by the court a quo in an application for the conversion to United States dollars of part of an award that sounded in Zimbabwean dollars. The award was granted by the court a quo and had subsequently been registered with the High Court. More
This is an appeal against the decision of the National Employment Council for the banking undertaking’s appeals board.
The Respondent was employed by appellant at its operations centre as a data input clerk. She was charged in the main for any serious act, conduct or omission inconsistent with fulfillment of the express or implied conditions oh her contract” as provided for under category “D” section 11(1) of the applicable code of conduct under S.I. 273/00, and alternatively breaching category “D” section 11(5) namely ‘fraud’. More
