: Pursuant to an eviction order, evicting the appellant and all those claiming occupation through him, of the remaining extent of Farm 45 Truno Glendale and Plots 1, 4 and 5 of Dunmaglas Farm the appellant lodged the present appeal. The appellant’s grounds of appeal were visibly repetitive and an attempt to adduce evidence. More
The applicant seeks an interdict restraining the respondent from
interfering with his farming operations at Subdivision 3 of farm 45, Glendale (the farm). More
The applicant and the first respondent are fighting over who should occupy subdivision 3 of Farm 45, Glendale, Mashonaland Central (the farm), which is State land. The firstrespondent obtainedon 9 December 2016 a mandament van spolieundercase number HC 12380/16. On 13 December 2016, the applicant appealed against that order under case number SC 771/16. More
The matter has been set down in terms of rule22 of the Labour Court rules. The Respondent is alleged to have failed to file a notice of response. However during questioning of the Respondent it became clear the Respondent was never served with a notice to file a response. Respondent was only served with the notice of appeal papers. The dies induciae has not started to run even to date. However on 30 January 2013 Respondent filed a notice of response and heads of argument. The papers were served on the Appellant on the same date. From the above Respondent... More
This is an application wherein the applicant seeks an order for reinstatement by his employer. The application is somewhat confusing in that on one hand it is presented as an application where the relief of mandamus is being sought and yet on the other hand it presents itself as an application for the registration of an arbitral award.
The matter has a very long history dating back to 2011. The brief facts are that applicant was employed by the respondent. He was later dismissed after having been convicted of misconduct. An arbitrator who entertained the matter reinstated him to his... More
This is an appeal against an arbitral award issued on 28 October 2010 in the following terms;
“That the claimant be paid damages of 3 years using the salary rate obtaining when he was unfairly dismissed.”
The appellant was employed by the respondent as a Senior Designated Agent until June 2007 when he was dismissed. More
This is a purported application for condonation for late noting an application for review. It is opposed. I say “purported” for the following reason.
This Court in Judgment Number LC/H/144/22 handed down on 3rd June 2022 determined a matter between the parties. The applicant has not appealed that judgment to the Supreme
Court. Instead he has approached this Court for “review”. The application is opposed with counsel for the respondent arguing that not only does the Court lack jurisdiction to review its own judgment, but the application is frivolous and vexatious. More
The Applicant seeks to evict the first respondent from a piece of land he was allocated in 2012 by way of an offer letter from the second respondent dated 24 September 2012. More
On the 13th of March the parties were in court on an appeal by the applicant. The respondent raised a preliminary point to the effect that the right to appeal was prescribed as has been decided in Patrick Munjovha v Delta Beverages (Pvt) Ltd SC 64/21. The appellant conceded the point and the appeal was struck off. (In hindsight it should have been dismissed. The order was uploaded the following day, the 14th. More
This is an urgent application wherein applicant seeks the following interim relief:
Pending the confirmation of this provisional order, applicants be and are hereby granted the following relief:
3.1 The 1st and 2nd respondents be and are hereby directed not to proceed with the removal and eviction of applicant, claiming occupation through him and their goods from Plot number 11 of Black Waters Farm.
3.2 The notice of removal served upon the applicant on the 11th of April 2022 be and is hereby suspended.
3.3 In the event that at the time of granting this order, applicant, those claiming occupation... More
MUSAKWA J (in chambers, in terms of s 35 of the High Court Act): The National Prosecuting Authority filed a notice in terms of s 35 of the High Court Act [Chapter 7:06] to the effect that it does not support the appellant’s conviction and gave reasons for such concession. More
At the hearing of this matter counsel for the respondent raised two points in limine which are the subject of this judgment. The applicant is seeking condonation of late noting of appeal and the extension of time within which to note an appeal. The founding affidavit is deposed to by the applicant’s wife. She states that she was authorised by a power of attorney dated 25 February 2016. The points in limine are: More
Thirty one bags of sugar soured the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant to such an extent that on 11 April 2007, the plaintiff issued summons against the defendant claiming delivery of the thirty one bags or alternatively, payment of the market value of the sugar as at the date of judgment, together with interest thereon at the prescribed rate from the date of the failed delivery to date of payment in full and costs of suit.
The facts leading to this suit are largely common cause. More
