1. This is an appeal against the whole judgment of the High Court (court a quo). The suspension from office of the appellant led to a flurry of court applications in the court a quo. This is just one of them in which the court a quo dismissed the appellant’s application. The application was made in terms of s 4 of the Administrative Justice Act [Chapter 10:28] (‘the Act’) on the basis that the respondents had failed to comply with the provisions of s 3(1)(a) of the Act. More
This is an application lodged in terms of r 32 of the Constitutional Court Rules, 2016, for leave to appeal against the whole judgment of the Supreme Court (the court a quo) handed down on 14 January 2022 as Judgment No. S-01-2022. The decision of the court a quo had dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the judgment of the High Court in Case No. HC 2302/20. More
[1] The first and third applicants seek condonation for the late noting of an appeal and extension of time within which to appeal. The application is contested by the first, third, fourth and sixth respondents.
[2] The parties are fighting over the control of the Stoneridge Residents Association (the association). More
This is an appeal against the order of a “Committee” of employer representative and the Human Resources Manager.
The brief history of this matter is that Appellant was employed as a Depot Manager. He was charged with four counts of misconduct that is
- Fraud, forgery, corruption, falsification.
- Theft.
- Failure to disclose any interests in a company conducting business with GMB in which one has an interest or influence.
- Any act of misconduct or omission inconsistent with the fulfillment of the express or implied conditions of one’s contract of employment. More
The applicant approached this court in terms of r 31 of the High Court Rules, 2021 where he is seeking the dismissal of the respondent’s action instituted under case number HC 7235/20 on the basis that it is frivolous and vexatious More
The appellants were arraigned before a Bindura Magistrate facing a charge of contravening section 45(1)(b) as read with section 128(1)(b) of the Parks and Wildlife Act Chapter 20:14 “found in possession of ivory”. More
A chamber application was filed with this Court by the second and third respondents under HC 186/21. The application was granted as follows: -
“1. The application for appointment of curator and litem be and is hereby granted.
2. MELLANIA GWAIKWA be and is hereby appointed curator ad litem for and in respect of FORBES MAROWA a mentally ill person in litigation under Zvishavane case number 98/21 and in any such case as may relate to Forbes Marowa’s disposal of house number 4009 Mandava Township Zvishavane.
3.The office of the said curator ad litem shall terminate upon finalisation of any... More
On 11 September 2014 the appellant noted an appeal against the arbitrator’s decision in a labour dispute which pitted him and the respondent employer. On 8 October 2014 respondent filed its notice of response to the appeal. Since then nothing happened to the matter despite the fact that as per the papers filed of record both parties were legally represented. No heads of argument were filed neither was the matter set down for hearing on the merits. The conclusion drawn from the history of the matter is that appellant has abandoned his case. More
Appellant appealed to this Court against his dismissal from employment by Respondent. The appeal was made in terms of Section 92D of the Labour Act Chapter 28:01. Respondent opposed the appeal. More
On 19 October 2005, applicant was convicted, on his own guilty plea, of culpable homicide. The facts of the matter are that the applicant was driving an omnibus along the Centenary-Mazowe Road carrying passengers when he was involved in an accident resulting in the death of the now deceased. Applicant was sentenced on 21 October 2005 to 12 months imprisonment of which 6 months imprisonment was suspended for 5 years on condition of good behaviour. His licence was cancelled and he was barred from driving all classes of motor vehicles for a period of 18 months. More
MAFUSIRE J:The plaintiff was a nephew of one Eric Nhodza (hereafter referred to as “Nhodza”). Nhodza was at all material times the defendant’s major shareholder. The evidence established is that the plaintiff and Nhodza were very close. More
On June 8th 2011 plaintiff issued summons against the first and second defendants claiming US$21 033.00 for loss of income, interest and costs, with liability to pay being joint and several the one paying the other to be absolved. More
Plaintiff issued summons claiming the return of a tractor, an International 444 model, as well as consequential damages as well as costs of suit. In his declaration the plaintiff claims that in July 2005, he had borrowed defendant’s tractor trailer in order to carry out certain work at his farm. Later defendant came and asked to use the plaintiff’s trailer to tow his trailer back to his farm. He did not return the tractor despite demand. More
On 7 November 2016, the applicant, who is a practising legal practitioner operating under the name F. M. Katsande & Partners, filed a Chamber application for “Release and Restoration of Seized Goods Pending Appeal.” The matter was placed before me in chambers in an application for judgment in default of opposition to the application. The goods, which are the subject of the application were seized by and are currently in the first respondent’s custody. More
The plaintiff is a legal practitioner and senior partner at the law firm of F.M. Katsande& Partners of Harare who has sued the first defendant a non-governmental organisation, also of Harare and its employee, the second defendant for payment of the sum of $32 286.00 in respect of legal fees levied against the defendants by the plaintiff for legal services rendered. More
