1. This is an appeal against both the conviction and sentence
2. The appellant was, following a full trial, convicted on a charge of criminal abuse of duty as a public officer as defined in s 174 (1)(a) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23] (the Criminal Law Code).
3. He was sentenced to 4 years imprisonment of which 18 months imprisonment was suspended on condition he paid restitution in the sum of US$25 228 on or before 30 April 2022. The sentence was passed on 18 February 2022. More
On 4 October 2008 the applicant was issued with an offer letter in respect of the Remaining Extent of Five Streams Farm in Mutasa District of Manicaland Province. He now seeks the following relief- More
The first respondent is a cooperative body set up in terms of the Co-operative Societies Act [Chapter 24:05], (“the Act”). The second respondent is the local authority responsible for the maintenance and administration of urban land. Although it was cited and served with the application, it has not seen it fit to respond thereto. The appellation respondent will therefore in this judgment be taken to refer to the Kambuzuma Housing Cooperative Society. The applicant was one of its members. In 2001 certain allegations were leveled against him as a result of which he was suspended from being a member of... More
The applicant approached this Court with a Court application which he termed an application for revocation of Letters of Administration and consent to sell, in which he seeks an order revoking the Letters of Administration given to the first respondent and that the consent to sell that was given to the first respondent to sell some immovable property be cancelled and also that his initial appointment as Executor be re-instated.
The application is opposed. In its opposition the first respondent raised three points inlimine which are basically that, there is no proper founding affidavit and the founding affidavit is fatally... More
On the 17th October 2006 plaintiff issued summons in this court claiming the following:-
(a) A decree of divorce
(b) An order dividing the movable property of the parties in terms of paragraph 8 of the declaration.
(c) That each party pays its own costs
Defendant was served personally with the summons on the 20th October 2006.
She did not enter appearance to defend. The dies induciea expired and the matter was set down on the unopposed roll. More
1. The applicant seeks an order for upliftment of bar and condonation for late filing of appearance to defend and plea under HC5762/16.
2. The brief background facts to this application are as follows: On 8 June 2016, the first respondent issued summons against Myrammar (Pvt) Ltd t/a Cottzim, [hereinafter referred to as Myrammar Farming], a company under judicial management and six other defendants. Myrammar Farming was cited as the first defendant. The return of service of the summons served on first defendant showed that it was served on Alex, the judicial manager. The 10 days within which the defendants... More
The applicant seeks a provisional order in the following terms:-
“TERMS OF FINAL ORDER SOUGHT
1. Execution of the order under case (number) HC 2326/08 is hereby stayed pending finalisation of the application for rescission of judgment. More
This is an application in terms of Section 92(F) of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01] for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against my judgment LC/H/94/19 in which I dismissed applicant’s application for condonation and extension of time within which to apply for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against my other judgment LC/H/469/17 in which I struck off applicant’s appeal for being prematurely before the Court. More
This is an application in terms of Section 92 E (3) of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01] for interim relief pending the hearing of an appeal against an arbitral award in favour of Respondent. The award was handed down on 16 September 2013 wherein Applicant was ordered to pay Respondent $6 279 within 30 days from the date of the award. More
MATHONSI JA: The appellant brought an urgent chamber application in the High Court for a stay of the execution of a judgment obtained by the first respondent against the second and third respondents on 12 February 2018 in the sum of US$352 851,30 together with interest and costs of suit.
By judgment delivered on 21 August 2020, the High Court dismissed the application with costs. This appeal is against that judgment dismissing the appellant’s urgent application. More
I heard the present application on 6 April, 2016. I delivered an ex tempore judgment in which I dismissed the application with costs on a punitive scale. I considered the matter as having been put to rest. More
CHIKOWERO J and I heard oral submissions on the law in this matter because the law requires a judge to seek the concurrence of another judge before correcting proceedings of the lower court or tribunal. Where oral submissions are made, it is desirable for both judges to be present in case the Judges may both and each require clarification by counsel. More
Sometime in January 2019, the Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions called for a nationwide stay away principally as a reaction against fuel price increases. It turned out that the events did not result in a stay away but blocking of major public roads, spikes, nails, boulders, tree trunks, tyres, drums and scrap metals were piled on the roads and in some instances human shield was used to thwart both human and automobile traffic. The applicant participated in this “stay away” and the end product of all this activity was an enormous number of people were arrested by the police, indeed... More
This is an appeal against the decision of the respondent’s appeals officer who confirmed appellant’s guilt and penalised him with dismissal. The background to the matter is that appellant attended a business workshop at Chinhoyi University hotel. After the workshop proceedings and after a cocktail which was given by his employer, appellant together with plus 14 colleagues congregated in a colleague’s room drinking and smoking and playing to loud music. More
The plaintiff seeks compensation in the sum of US$700-00 for the repairs he carried out on the leased premises together with loss of business in the sum of US$45 793-00 from the defendant and costs of suit. The defendant counterclaimed for arrear rentals of US$2 254-00, holding over damages calculated from 1 January 2010 to the date of eviction, operational costs in the sum of US$2 283-47, interest on these sums at the prescribed rate, eviction and costs on the higher scale. More
