This is an application for rescission of the judgment granted by this court on 13 May 2009 in case number HC 6215/08. The matter was argued before me on 3 September 2009. In their submissions the respondents raised a point in limine that the applicants were in contempt of the judgment that they seek to rescind. The applicants opposed the issue of contempt. On 21 October 2009 I made a finding that the applicants were in contempt of the order and that their application for its rescission will not be determined on the merits until they purge their contempt. The... More
This is an appeal against the judgment of the Magistrates Court in terms of which that court dismissed the appellant’s claim for an order confirming cancellation of the lease agreement between appellant and the respondents and for the ejectment of the respondent and all persons claiming occupation through them from the property described in the papers as Kalahari Breeze Stores, Bob’s Shopping Centre, Zhombe Road, Kwekwe. The appeal is opposed by the second respondent. More
This is an application made in terms of Order 32 r 236(4) of the Rules of the High Court 1971, for dismissal of the application for rescission of judgment in case number HC 3489/12 with costs. The background to this matter is as follows: More
: The revenue authority still has to find ways to endear itself to the public. Throughout the times, the tax collector has been called many unsavory names. In the trial before me, the defendant was called a day light robber. More
This is yet another crime arising from endless disputes over ownership of mines.
The applicant owns a mine known as Cake Walk 8 while D & S Syndicate own and operate Cake Walk 2 Mine. The two mines are separated by a fifty (50) metre stretch of no man’s land. There was a dispute between D & S Syndicate and applicant over ownership of Cake Walk 2 Mine. It is common cause that Cake Walk 2 Mine was invaded by a mob armed with axes, pick handles and crow bars. The mob was in a combative mood shouting words to... More
This is an appeal by the Appellant challenging his dismissal by the Respondent which dismissal was confirmed by the Respondent’s appeals board.
The basic facts giving rise to this appeal are as follows: Appellant was charged with willfully abusing the Respondent’s assets or alternatively conducting himself in a manner inconsistent with the conditions of his employment. In particular it was alleged that the Appellant abused the e-mail facility which ZIMRA, the Respondent had provided him with for business use. Contrary to expectation, he is said to have abused this e-mail facility by sending out to his friends and relatives pornographic... More
The Applicant’s case was that on the date his application for reinstatement of his application was dismissed, he together with his legal practitioner of choice did not attend court. The reason for non-attendance was that his legal practitioner a Mr Chikono had misdiarised the court date and advised his client, now the Applicant that the case was to be heard on 28 June 2021 instead of 22 June 2021.
Applicant visited the court on 26 June 2021 to check if the matter was on the court roll for 28 June 2021. He could not locate his name which led him... More
1. This is an appeal against the whole determination done by a designated agent for the National Employment Council for the Air Transport Industry dated the 31st March 2023. More
This is an opposed application for leave to appeal against a decision of the Supreme Court (“the court a quo”) made in terms of s 167(5)(b) of the Constitution as read with r 32(2) of the Constitutional Court Rules, 2016 (“the Rules”). More
This appeal emanates from an election petition lodged with the Electoral Court to nullify the election of the respondent and to declare the petitioner (the appellant herein) duly elected as the Member of Parliament for Chegutu West. The disputed election was held on 30 July 2018. More
This matter has trudged a long and tortuous journey. The applicants are former employees of the respondent who were charged with misconduct and dismissed in 2005 following disciplinary processes. The applicants challenged their dismissal right up to the Labour Court in case number LC/H.15/06. The Labour Court found for the applicants on 5 July, 2007 and ordered their reinstatement, alternatively, payment of damages in lieu of reinstatement. The respondent opted to pay damages, caused their quantification on 10 December 2008 equivalent to 5 years salary using the cut off date of 5 July, 2007 and tendered them to the applicants. More
This is an application for quantification of damages consequent upon a remittal by the Supreme Court in its judgment No. SC 21/14 pitting the same parties. More
Applicants aver that labouring under a number of “boo-boos”, the court issued a judgment in their absence in a matter affecting their interests. In that respect, applicants have moved the court to set aside that 2 February 2020 judgment (per PHIRI J), in terms of rule 29 of the High Court Rules 2021 (the successor to r 449 in the old High Court Rules 1971). This rule permits a party to approach the court in circumstances where a judgment was erroneously granted, in its absence and in a matter affecting that party`s interests. Determination of this matter hinges in the... More
This is an appeal against the decision of the respondent disciplinary authority where it found appellant employee guilty of improperly associating with school pupils where he allegedly proposed love to one RudoGwatidzo who was a new comer at the school he was teaching. Facts of the matter are that appellant was brought before a disciplinary committee after allegations of improperly associating with 3 school girls had been levelled against him. Following the hearing he was found not guilty in respect of the other 2 girls who did not come to testify against him. He was however found guilty in respect... More
This matter was filed as an urgent chamber application on 29 October 2021. The applicant was seeking the following provisional order:
TERMS OF FINAL ORDER SOUGHT
That you show cause to this Honourable Court why a final order should not be made in the following terms:
1. The applicant’s possession, use and occupation of Plot No.9 Carrisbrooke Farm, Seke District, Mashonaland East, be and is hereby declared to be lawful.
2. The first respondent and all those acting through her, be and are hereby barred from interfering, occupation or use in any manner of Plot No.9 Carrisbrooke Farm, Seke District,... More
