On 30 September 2020 we dismissed an appeal against sentence lodged by the appellant. We gave an extempore judgment and undertook to avail the written reasons in due course.
These are they:
The appellant was convicted by the Regional Magistrate Mutare following his plea to Robbery as defined in s 126 (1) (a) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23]. The brief facts of the matter being that the appellant together with accomplices used force and violence threatening the complainants with a pistol, machete using a rope to assault the complainants caused the complainants to relinquish control... More
Appellant appealed to this Court against his dismissal from employment by Respondent.
His grounds of appeal complained that,
“1. The Appellant was not accorded a fair hearing at the work place
and in particular the Respondent refused/neglected to release key witnesses.
The disciplinary proceedings were heavily, flawed and the principles of natural justice and fairness were not adhered to.
The Appellant did not receive adequate training and was not given proper induction. The decision to dismiss the Appellant is too harsh in the circumstances.
4) The Applicant (sic) was not afforded an opportunity to address the disciplinary committee in mitigation.” More
The basis of this application is set out in detail in the affidavit deposed by one Phillip Chiyangwa. He is the director and alter ego of the first applicant. He avers that on first applicant’s behalf, he applied to first respondent for the purchase and development of 526 hectares of virgin land in Chegutu. It was intended to develop the land into residential stands.
In September 2001 first respondent’s council deliberated on the subject matter of the sale of 526 hectares. It approved the application by first applicant and notified it accordingly. He was, as chairman of first applicant, invited... More
This is an appeal in terms of Rule 67 (1) of the Supreme Court Rules 2018 against the dismissal of the appellant’s bail application by the High Court. More
On the 17th May 2024 the Chief Designated Officer of the NEC for the Commercial Sectors issued a determination which ordered appellant to reinstate respondent’s employment. Appellant then appealed the determination to this Court in terms of Section 92D of the Labour Act Chapter 28:01 hereafter called “the Act.” Respondent opposed the appeal. More
On the 17th May 2024 the Negotiating Committee (NNC) of the NEC for the Commercial
Sectors ordered appellant to reinstate respondent with full salary and benefits. Appellant then appealed the ruling to this Court in terms of Section 92D of the Labour Act Chapter 28:01. More
This is an appeal against a determination by the Chief Designated Agent of the Negotiating Committee of the National Employment Council for the Commercial Sectors of Zimbabwe( NECCSZ) which set aside a decision of the Local Joint Committee (of the NECCSZ) and ordered the appellant to reinstate the respondent with no loss of salary or benefits. This aggrieved the appellant leading to the present appeal . Three grounds of appeal are raised. These are that (i) the Negotiating Committee erred and misdirected itself in finding that the respondent was not dishonest and yet it was proven that he had deliberately... More
On April 19 2016 the applicant issued summons against the respondents, claiming as against the first respondent, the sum of US$ 4, 660 117.49 being the amount due and payable in respect of work carried out by it at first respondent’s main campus at Masvingo. It also claimed interest on that sum at the prescribed rate plus costs of suit on a legal practitioner and client scale and collection commission calculated in terms of the Law Society By Laws of 1982 as amended by SI 157 of 2014.
The background facts to this matter are summarized More
Gam Plastic (Pvt) Ltd (Gam) is situate at 30 Bristol Road in Workington, Harare. The three respondents collectively hold 50.19% shareholding in Gam. More
The plaintiff sued the defendant claiming $4 777 070 388-00 (old currency) for loss of profits suffered by the plaintiff with interest at the prescribed rate from the date of summons to date of final payment. The defendant denied liability for any loss the plaintiff may have suffered as alleged in the plaintiff’s summons and declaration. More
This is an application for summary judgment in terms of o10 r64 of the High Court Rules 1971. Applicant issued summons under case number HC 1533/16 for the recovery of arrear rentals, eviction of the respondent and all those claiming occupation through the respondent, cancellation of the lease agreement, hold over damages, water charges and costs of suit. The suit arose from repeated breaches of the lease agreement which has expired by the effluxion of time as well an acknowledgment of debt which has not been adhered to. More
The brief background to this matter is that the applicant is in occupation of stand No. 10138 Whitecliff South, Harare by virtue of a lease agreement between her and the third respondent. The lease has been running since 1st December 2012 and it gives the applicant the option to purchase only when the third respondent has valued the property and make an offer to the applicant to purchase. No offer has been made so the applicant cannot exercise any right of option either to accept or refuse. Her status remains than of a lessee. More
This is an appeal against the decision of the respondent’s Appeals Committee, which upheld the dismissal of the appellant from employment. The appellant was dismissed from employment following his conviction on misconduct allegations by the respondent’s Disciplinary Committee.
The appellant was employed by the respondent as a Stores Issuer. In March 2014, he was charged with misconduct, the charge being theft, in terms PART B (4) (d) of the Collective Bargaining Agreement: Mining Industry (Code of Conduct) Statutory Instrument 165 of 1992. It was alleged that he stole 15 litres of petrol by making a deliberateover allocation to the Mine’s... More
The appellant herein issued summons out of the magistrates’ court claiming an order for division of “matrimonial property”. In a document headed “Plaintiff’s Declaration” the plaintiff averred that the parties were customarily married in 1996 and were blessed with three children. He averred that the parties’ union had irretrievably broken down with the parties living separately albeit in the same house. He averred that there were no prospects of a reunion as they were no longer affording each other conjugal rights. He further averred that it would be just and equitable if the listed property acquired during the subsistence of... More
