This is an appeal against an arbitral award handed down on12 February 2013, in terms of which it was ruled that the respondent was unfairly dismissed, and should be reinstated to his employment with the respondent. More
This is a matter in which the applicant was wrongfully dismissed from the respondent’s employ. This Court ordered that the applicant be reinstated or alternatively that the respondent, awarded the applicant the appropriate damages in lieu of reinstatement. The respondent did not reinstate the applicant. The parties failed to agree and the parties approached the Court for quantification of damages. More
After hearing argument by the respective parties, I dismissed the application with costs on an attorney and client scale. I now give my reasons. On 20 January 2020, the applicant filed an urgent chamber application and submitted that, in 2002, he obtained rights to extract minerals in Mvuma through special grants SG 2854 and SG 2858. Before the expiry of the special grants in 2011, he wrote to the second respondent through the office of the Mining Commissioner, seeking their renewal. Thereafter, on 20 April 2018, the second respondent acknowledged receipt of the applicant’s letter, and indicated that applicant’s file... More
MUCHAWA P,:
This is an application for quantification of damages pursuant to an earlier order of this Honourable Court which ordered Applicant’s reinstatement to his position of General Manager with Respondent. In the event that reinstatement was no longer possible, Respondent was ordered to pay damages in lieu of reinstatement. Parties could not agree on the quantum and have referred back the issue to this Court. This is now the matter before us. More
This is an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. The record was erroneously kept in the registry instead of it being referred for consideration of judgment. Hence while the matter was heard in October 2012, the judgment is only being considered in January 2013. The confusion regarding the movement of the record is regretted More
This is an application for rescission of judgment issued in default against the applicant on 15 April 2015.
The Respondent opposed the application and raised preliminary objections that:
1. The application is totally defective for non-compliance with the Rules of this court in that applicant has adopted an incorrect form and;
2. The application is out of time. More
ZISENGWE J: This dispute is the latest instalment in a series of legal battles waged between the applicant and 1st respondent at whose heart lies the question of whether or not the 1st respondent is the legitimate surviving spouse of the late Aube Musanhu who died intestate in 2006.
The applicant is the brother of the late Aube Musanhu and his position is that the 1st respondent (as with the 2nd and 3rd respondents) is a masquerade as she was never married to Aube Musanhu. He avers that the 1st respondent was merely involved in an adulterous relationship with the... More
The appellant and respondent started staying together as husband and wife in 1969. In 1971 their union was solemnized in terms of the African Marriages Act, [Cap 238], now Customary Marriages Act [Cap 5:07]. In the same year the appellant secured residential accommodation from his employer the Ministry of Health. That property is number 3567 Old Highfields, Harare. The property was a three roomed house. They lived in that house as tenants. More
: This is an opposed application wherein the applicant seeks the following relief:
“1. That the respondent be and is hereby ordered to deliver six million (6, 000 000) AICO Africa Ltd shares together with the share certificates within 48 hours of this order.
2. That the respondent shall pay the costs of this application in terms of the Law Society tariff including costs of two Counsels where the two are employed”. More
This is a matter in which the applicant filed an application on urgency seeking the following relief in the form of a 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. That the 1st and 2nd respondents be and are hereby barred either in themselves or through their agents from removing gold pregnant sands from Gazemba 105-108 mine pending the finalisation of Case No. HC 2666/18 (XRef HC 7729/17).
2. The respondents shall bear the costs of this application on the... More
TAKUVA J: The 71 year old accused appeared before a Regional Magistrate at Gweru on 10 October 2019 facing a charge of rape in contravention of section 65 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act (Chapter 9:23) (the Code). The State’s case was that on the 10th of March 2019 at around 1600 hours, the complainant an eleven (11) year old girl was walking in the company of her aunt one Atrona Zhou when the appellant called her into his shop namely shop No. 5 Kandodo Business Centre, Zvishavane. Upon entering the shop the appellant closed the door and... More
This is an application for condonation of the late filing of a Notice of Appeal. It is which cause that the Applicant didn’t file an affidavit but his legal practitioner did this on his behalf. The first issues raised by Respondent’s counsel is that the legal practitioner, who de… to the Founding Affidavit could not appear on behalf of the Applicant as he assured the complexion of a witness. Mr Chipere attempted to play down the issue. However, it is quite clear that Mr Chipere having sworn to the Founding Affidavit would not proceed to appear on behalf of the... More
1. The plaintiff seeks an eviction order against defendant and all those claiming throughhim from stand Lot 1 of subdivision B of subdivision B of Deneys situate in the district of Gwanda (property). The order is sought on the basis of an alleged unlawful occupation of the property by the defendant. More
On 15 July 2021 this court under Case No. HC 369/20 delivered a judgment by consent obliging the plaintiff to vacate a piece of land identified as subdivision 3 of Cambria farm situate in Masvingo upon the expiration of 6 months’ notice commencing the date of the issuance of the consent order. In return, the defendant was required to compensate the plaintiff for the value of the improvements effected on that property which value was to be determined by Great Zimbabwe Realtors. The evaluation was done and the value of the improvements was given as $30 500. Of that amount... More
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
