This is an Application for Registration of an Arbitral award in terms of article 35 of the Arbitration Act [Chapter 7: 1 5] as read with Rule 50 of the High Court Rules SI 202/ 2021.Applicant seeks an Order More
At the hearing of this matter a preliminary issue was raised that the Appellant’s legal practitioners had failed to file Heads of Arguments timeously in terms of Rule 19 of the Labour Court Rules.
The Appellant argued that the operation of the bar is not automatic. It was submitted in this regard that
“The Appellant argues firstly that there is no provision in the Labour Court rules which is to the effect that a party who has not filed its Heads of Argument timeously is barred from being heard on the merits”. More
At the hearing of this matter I upheld two points in limine and struck the matter off the roll. These are the detailed reasons for that decision.
On 4 November 2013 appellant noted an appeal against the interim award of the Arbitrator P Bvumbe and the main award. Though the grounds of appeal indicate that these awards were served on the appellant on 4 October 2013 they were actually served on different dates. The first award which is marked “A” was received by appellant’s legal practitioners on 26 July 2012 having been issued on 21 July 2012. The second award... More
The parties to these matters requested that they be consolidated, that is, the appeal, the review and the cross- appeal. The Court acceded to the request. More
This is an urgent chamber application in terms of which the applicant Fidelity Life Assurance of Zimbabwe Limited hereinafter referred to as Fidelity seeks a provisional order whose terms of the final order sought and interim relief granted are as follows:
“TERMS OF THE FINAL ORDER SOUGHT
That you show cause to the Honourable Court why a final order should not be made in the following terms:
1. That a final interdict barring respondent from carrying out developments and construction activities on the property being a certain piece of land situate in the District of Salisbury being the remaining extent... More
This is an urgent chamber application for what Applicant termed Interim Relief andUrgent Hearing. This follows an arbitral determination dating back to 21 February 2007, which awarded the Respondent reinstatement and back pay and benefits totaling ZWD$22 352 000.00. This was followed by another award dated 17 September 2013 which ordered that the amount awarded be converted to United States dollars using the exchange rate of the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe prevailing at the date of the award i.e. 22 February 2007. It was also ordered that Applicant pays Respondent US$16 000.00 as damages in lieu of reinstatement. More
On 4 July 2016 the applicants failed to attend court at 0900 hours, resulting in the court granting default judgement in HC 12306/15 in the following;
“1. That the judgement debt capital sums and interest owing to the first respondent from the first applicant and the second applicant in terms of judgments HC 2572/11, HC 2004/11, HC 2005/11 and HC 2005/11 be and are hereby declared settled in full. More
This is an application for an order joining the second respondent as a party to the proceedings launched by the applicant by summons action in case No. HC 9536/11. The basis of the application is that the second respondent has a substantial interest in those proceedings and may be affected by the decision made in that matter. More
By agreement, three interconnected cases were consolidated and argued as one. The central dispute is over the rights, title and interest in a certain gold mine called Mirage 3, situate in Kwe Kwe, in the Midlands Province (“the mine”). In a nutshell, two protagonists, Fidelity Printers and Refiners (Pvt) Ltd (“Fidelity Printers”), and Jona (or Jonah) Nyevera (“Nyevera”) tussle for the right to occupy the mine and to exploit certain gold ore sands piled there. Both claim rights of ownership deriving from their certificates of registration of the mine with the Ministry of Mines and Mining Development (“the Ministry of... More
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
