MAKONESE J: This is an urgent chamber application for an interdict. The Draft Order is couched in the following terms:
“INTERIM RELIEF SOUGHT
1. That 1st and 2nd respondents, their associates, agents, assignees, partners, and all those claiming mining rights through them, be and are hereby ordered to forthwith cease all mining activities at Ansh 267 gold mine, registration number 27857, situate at Selukwe Peak Farm, Shurugwi.
2. That 4th respondent be and is hereby directed and ordered to carry out a survey on the ground and compile and file with the court a survey report within 21 days of... More
On the 10th of April 2019 at Harare Applicant, qua Designated Agent made a ruling. She ordered 1st Respondent (employer) to pay 2nd to 12th Respondent (employees) a total sum of $21,065-45 in respect of their retrenchment package or terminal benefits. The payments were due within thirty (30) days of the ruling. Apparently the employer did not comply. Applicant then applied to this Court in terms of section 93 (5a) of the Labour Act Chapter 28:01(hereafter called the Act) for the confirmation of her ruling. The employer supported the application. The employees opposed the application. More
The applicant made a ruling in terms of section 93 5 ( c) of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01] in the following terms:
“1. The claim by the claimant for payment of service pay is hereby upheld in terms of section 12 c (2) of the Labour Act.
2. The respondent should therefore pay a total of $1 574-16 to the claimant.
3. The order should be complied with within thirty days from the date of receiving it.”
Pursuant to section 93 5 (a) and (b) of the Act the applicant has approached this court for confirmation of the said... More
The first plaintiff is the widow of the late Benard Nyandoro while the first defendant is the son of the late Nelson Nyandoro. Bernard was the elder brother of Nelson. The tussle in the present matter is between the first plaintiff and her nephew, the first defendant, over the ownership of Stand Number 748 – 3rd Street Hatcliffe (748) in Harare. This immovable property was purportedly acquired and developed by Bernard but was registered in the name of Nelson. Nelson never resided at this property. He lived with his wife and children at another house in Hatcliffe that was registered... More
The brief background to the matter is that the applicant and second respondent are embroiled in a dispute over a piece of land. It shall not be necessary to bring forth the entire history of the dispute over this land except to say on 20 September 2017 the second respondent obtained an order in its favour against the applicant in Case HC 8487/17 for a spoliation order. More
The factual background to this matter is that the plaintiff and the defendant have been married for 26 years from 1993 to date. In 1993 they were married in a customary union which was succeeded by a civil marriage in 1998. The couple subsequently sired three children during the subsistence of their marriage. They formed 4 companies and built four homes during the marriage among other assets. In December 2019 the defendant left their matrimonial home abandoning the plaintiff and their three children. The plaintiff then launched divorce proceedings against the defendant seeking a decree of divorce and ancillary relief. More
The applicant in this matter seeks an order declaring the legality of her occupation of a piece of farm land in Seke District and the nullification of the consolidation of that land with an adjoining farm. She also seeks the eviction of the 2nd respondent and an order for costs against him. The 1st respondent (the Minister) resists the application on the ground that the applicant’s right to occupy the land was withdrawn. More
This is an application for rescission of the judgment that was entered in default by this court on 28 October 2015. In this judgment the court dismissed the application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. More
The appellant is employed by the respondent as a primary school senior teacher. She was charged for admitting two grade two pupils into her grade one class without the authority of the school head. This was a violation of paragraph 3 and 24 of the First schedule of S.I. 1/2000 as amended “Paragraph 3 of the First Schedule (Section 2) of Statutory Instrument 1 of 2000 (S.1. 1/2000) provides:
3. “Failure to perform any work or duty properly assigned, or failure to obey lawful instructions including circulars, instructions or orders issued by the Commission, the Treasury or the Accounting Officer... More
This is an appeal against an arbitral award. The grounds of appeal can be summarized as follows:-
1. The Arbitrator misdirected himself on the law by shifting the burden of proof from Respondent to Appellant.
2. The Arbitrator erred on a question of law by basing his decision on the parties written submissions without holding an oral hearing.
3. The Arbitrator erred in finding that Respondent be paid a gratuity.
4. The Arbitrator misinterpreted Section 125 of the Labour Act. It does not oblige employers to prove cases for employees. More
The applicant filed this application under r 377 of the High Court Rules, 1971. The rule confers a right upon an applicant who obtains a judgment against a judgment debtor to move the court to compel a third party who owes a debt to the judgment debtor to pay the debt not to the judgment debtor but to the applicant. More
This matter arose from the change of ownership from BP and Shell Private Limited to the Appellant as a going concern with a clause inserted in the agreement guaranteeing the conditions of service of the employees. It is alleged the said clause was violated by the Appellant. After initial attempts to resolve the matter failed, it was referred to compulsory arbitration. More
This chamber application for custody is captioned court application for custody, yet by its tone it is a Chamber Application. Diligence in preparation of pleadings is important, it cannot be overemphasized. More
