On 13 January 2023 applicant’s application for bail pending trial was dismissed. The record shows on dismissing the application the court considered that applicant is a danger to society as he was part of a gang that attacked the deceased. The court also considered that applicant and his accomplices had used dangerous weapons in the commission of the offence. The court further considered applicant a flight risk as he was found in possession of the murder weapon. More
This is an application for condonation of the late filing of an appeal. At the commencement of the oral submissions, Ms Matongwana raised preliminary issues relating to the filing of documents by the Respondent. She stated that Respondent’s legal practitioners had not filed an Assumption of Agency as prescribed by the Rules. She also stated that the Respondent had filed the heads of argument two (2) days after the due date and had not applied for condonation. In response, Ms Mangoi stated that due the new system of filing of documents on the IECMS platform, Respondent only realized on perusal... More
On 17 November 2022, this Court issued an Ex Tempore judgment granting condonation to Respondent to file an appeal before this Court. Applicant is dissatisfied with the decision and intends to approach the Supreme Court on appeal. More
The brief narrative is that the applicant entered into a lease agreement with the 1st respondent a juristic entity on the 5th of March 2018. The terms and conditions pertaining to the renewal and termination of the lease where embodied in the lease which is part of the record. By mutual consent the said lease which had been renewed for a further two terms was supposed to expire on the 31st of January 2021. In the interim, the 1st respondent subletted the property in issue to one of its then employees, the 2nd respondent, in February 2019. Somewhere along the... More
The appellant was convicted of contravening s 182 (2) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23]. He was sentenced to 4 months’ imprisonment which was wholly suspended on condition that he complied with the order that was granted against him in 2012. He noted an appeal against conviction. More
This is an application for review by Madziva (Applicant). The document that gave rise to this application is a response (THE RESPONSE) dated 13th February, 2014 by the Respondent’s human Resources Officer to Applicant’s legal practitioner’s notice of appeal dated 11th February, 2014 and addressed to Applicant’s legal practitioners. More
The issue which arises in this matter is rather a novel one.
It is important for counsel to apply their minds to all matters which they deal with especially statutory offences. I find if unfair that counsel would not endeavour to carry out any meaningful research but rather swallow hook, line and sinker all what would have happened in the lower court. This is what happened in this matter and both counsel later admitted that they also doubted the propriety of the charge preferred against the appellant but nonetheless did not raise any eye brows. More
1. The Application for a declaratur to the effect that the 1-5th applicants and 3rd -18th respondents cannot hold valid elections or set or restructure the 2nd respondent’s structures on their own.
2. The ancillary relief is granted to the effect that:
2.1 The 1-5th applicants and 3rd-18th respondents be and are hereby directed to hold fresh elections, within 3 calendar months of receiving this court order, for all the elected positions of the 2nd respondent as provided for in terms of its constitution, and the elections would be organised, conducted and supervised by a team, set by the 1st... More
At the hearing of an application for review I reserved my ruling on points in limine raised by the respondent. This is it.
The agreed facts are that the applicant was employed by the respondent as a staff bus driver on a three months fixed term contract with effect from 15 January 2014. The last such contract signed by the parties was from 1 July 2014 to 31 September 2014. No contract was signed on 1 October until 9 December when the respondent approached the applicant to sign a new contract. More
AND WHEREAS , In the 2nd paragraph and the 3rd sentence, that sentence reads: ‘Applicant was tried and found of guilty of theft and was subsequently dismissed from employment.’ AND WHEREAS , The sentence should read:
“Applicant was tried and found guilty of theft and was subsequently dismissed from employment.”
Judgment LCH/54/24 is accordingly corrected as indicated above. More
This is an application for review against the proceedings of the Respondent’s disciplinary committee that was conducted on 14 September 2022.The applicant was subsequently dismissed on 15 September 2022 More
On the 4th September, 2015 an arbitral award was issued against Applicant in which it was ordered to remit to Respondent an amount of $7 335.32 as union dues.
Applicant filed an appeal against this award. It has filed this application for interim relief seeking in the interim that the arbitral award be stayed pending finalisation of its appeal and as a final order, that the award be stayed permanently.
In agreement with the Respondent’s submission, I find that the final order being sought is incompetent and therefore cannot be granted, as it has the effect allowing the appeal before... More
This is an appeal against an arbitral award.
The respondent is a registered trade union in terms of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01]. It represents employees in the rural district councils of Zimbabwe. The appellant is a rural district council incorporated in terms of the Rural District Council Act [Chapter 29:13].
The claim brought by the respondent before the arbitrator was for union dues arrears for the period July 2014 to April 2015 together with 15% interest on all dues paid after the 5th day of the ensuing month.
The arbitrator found for the respondent and ordered that the appellant... More
On 9 February 2012, the applicant filed the present application seeking a declaratur and other consequential relief. The application was opposed by the respondent on 12 February 2012. In the opposition, the respondent raised two preliminary points. More
