This is an application for Review. The question of jurisdiction and prescription have been raised on behalf of the applicant. The sole ground for review is therefore:
“Absence of jurisdiction on part of the Disciplinary Committee on the basis that the matter has prescribed.”
The matter is presently still pending before the respondents. This is so as the applicant raised a preliminary issue that the matter had prescribed and could therefore not be heard by the Disciplinary Committee as this would be in violation of s94 of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01] (the Act).
The applicant was charged with the... More
The applicants seek an order declaring as unlawful theallotment of certain shares in second respondent by Ettore Pietro Fumia to himself.They also seek an order for costs against the first respondent. The allotment was done on 15 November 1994. This application was filed on 30 June 2011. It is not in dispute that by that date the said Ettore Pietro Fumia had become indisposed and was no longer compos mentis. He has since died and the Executrix, on behalf of the deceased estate, has resisted the present application More
The applicant approached the court through the urgent chamber book on 11 March 2021. The applicant sought the following order.
“TERMS OF THE FINAL ORDER SOUGHT
1. That the decision of the respondents to expel applicant’s son namely Tyrees Knife from school be and is hereby declared null and void and of no force or effect as it was arrived as a result of procedural impropriety.
2. The applicant’s son be and is hereby allowed to remain a student at the 1st respondent while at the same time attending his lessons without any form of hindrances from the respondents.
3.... More
This is an application for Summary Judgment in terms of Order 10 Rule 64 of the Rules of this court. The background of the case is that the applicant who is the plaintiff in the main matter issued summons against the respondent. In his summons, applicant claims the sum of $40 697-19 from the respondent. More
The facts of this matter require mentioning with a bit of detail. The applicant and the late Dr Herbert Sylvester Masiyiwa Ushewokunze (“Dr Ushewokunze”) were in a love relationship from 1981 to 1983. Dr Ushewokunze purchased and registered in the applicant’s name three properties (on 16 February 1983), namely: More
The court a quo found in favour of the plaintiff (the respondent herein) and ordered the defendant’s (the appellants herein) to pay accident related damages of $10 000 together with interest from the date of issue of summons. More
This matter concerns the status of adultery damages in Zimbabwe in the 21st century. The main issue is whether or not the common law delictual claim for adultery damages is constitutional or unconstitutional. More
This application was filed as an urgent court application in terms of the s 85(1)(a) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe (the Constitution). The applicant has since June 2020, been appearing as a State witness before the fourth, fifth and sixth respondents in a matter in which certain persons stand charged with perjury and malicious damage to property. From July 2020, the applicant has been appearing as an accused person before the third respondent in a matter in which he faces a charge of fraud. The persons appearing as accused persons in the perjury and malicious damage to property charges are... More
This appeal is against the decision of the Concession Magistrates Court which was sitting as an appeal court against the decision of Chief Negomo. In the Chief’s Court the respondent herein had approached the court complaining that appellant was annexing portions of his land and allocating it to other people. The Chief found in the respondent’s favour concluding that he was within the confines of the land that had been allocated to his grandmother and which had passed on to the respondent when his own father died. Displeased with this verdict, the appellant had approached the magistrate court to hear... More
This is an appeal against the decision of the Hearing Officer finding the Appellant guilty of misconduct culminating in his dismissal from employment. The brief facts are that the Appellant was employed as the Acting Chief Executive Officer of Respondent. He also held the post of Head of Finance. This means that he held the two posts simultaneously. An audit was carried out following reports of misconduct. The audit report made certain recommendations amongst of which it was stated that Appellant had failed to discharge his duties both as Head of Finance and Acting Chief Executive Officer and the Board... More
Applicant filed this application seeking a declaratur to the effect that:
1. The Deed of Settlement entered into between the applicant and respondent on 2 October 2018 and filed with the Supreme Court of Zimbabwe be and is hereby declared the only binding deed of settlement between the parties.
2. Consequently, the Deed of Settlement produced by the respondent dated 18 August 2020 be and is hereby declared not a valid document and is set aside.
3. Applicants’ debt arising from the judgment HH 689/16 and the proceedings under SC 273/17 was discharged by the payment of the sum of... More
This is an application for condonation for late filing of an application for review.
Factual Background
The applicant who was employed by the 2nd respondent was charged with Habitual and substantial neglect of his duties in terms of section 4 (g) of Statutory Instrument 15/2006.
He was found guilty and dismissed. His internal appeals were not successful and the matter was eventually referred to a Labour Officer More
Applicant filed an application for condonation of the failure to file an appeal timeously under case number LC/H/157/23. On 13 June 2022, after hearing the parties, the Court proceeded to render an Ex Tempore Judgment on the same date dismissing the application. The Applicant proceeded to file an application for leave to appeal under Case Number LC/H/531/23. This matter was set down for hearing on 27 September 2023. However, Applicant was not in attendance. The application was struck off the off the roll. It is pertinent to note that after the judgment of 13 June 2022, Applicant’s representative requested for... More
The plaintiff is the holder of an offer letter to lease a certain piece of State land, namely subdivision 14, 15 and 19 of Maynard Farm, in the district of Chegutu, Mashonaland West. The offer letter was issued under the hand of the Minister of Lands on 8 June 2007. More
