Electronic Court judgements

Browse all Court Judgements

Applicant applied for “reinstating my appeal on grievances.” Respondent opposed the application. The application was not in the proper form. 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

This matter was placed before me as a special case in terms of Order 29 r 199 of the High Court Rules, 1971. More

At the conclusion of the hearing of this matter, l delivered an ex temporae judgment. The applicant has requested for the reasons of the judgment. These are they. The applicant approached this court seeking an order in the following terms: “1. The respondent shall make available for inspection, by the Applicant’s legal practitioner in terms of Order 24 of the High Court Rules, the documents requested in the notice to produce documents for inspection filed under case No. H.C. 4372/15, within five days of the date of service of this order upon the Respondent. 2. The Respondent shall pay the... More

This is an appeal from an arbitral award. At the onset of the proceedings counsel for the Respondent raised a point in limine that there is no appeal before this court. He submitted that an appeal to this court in matters of this nature lies on a point of law in terms of Section 98(10) of the Labour Act (Chapter 28:01). Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the grounds of appeal as raised by the Respondent raises no points of law and the matter should be struck off the roll. More

This is an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against a decision of this court which was handed down on the 2nd of August 2013. More

This appeal involves the sale of a motor vehicle gone wrong. After the sale of the motor vehicle some two years later it was seized by ZIMRA officials resulting in the buyer approaching the Magistrates court seeking reimbursement of the sale price and related relief. The seller counter claimed for the sum of US$2 500 which had been given to the buyer for payment of duty. The court a quo found for the buyer dismissed the counter claim. The seller is unhappy about this resolution and filed this appeal. More

In an appeal to this court the respondent raised points in limine mainly to the effect that the appeal before the court was improperly before it. This is so taking into account the fact that the appellant changed the appeal grounds that she used when she lodged her application for condonation of late filing of appeal. Rule 22(2) Labour Court rules makes it clear that the condonation application shall have the draft notice attached to it. The essence in so attaching the draft is for the court to be able to glean whether or not it is a merited appeal... More

The applicant appeared before the Magistrate sitting at Chinhoyi Court charged jointly with six other accused persons facing three counts of robbery and one count of theft from a motor vehicle in contravention of s126 (1) (a) and s113 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform Act ), [Chapter 9:23] respectively. The applicant was acquitted on the first count and convicted on two counts of robbery and theft from a motor vehicle. The applicant was cited as the seventh accused person. More