The second applicant is a well known and I might venture to say, renowned gospel artist in Zimbabwe. The first applicant is a recording company. From the papers, it is apparent, that for the performance which is the subject matter of this dispute the first applicant was contracted to arrange the recording of Charamba’s live show. It seems that the respondent is also in the business of recording live shows and producing from such DVD’s and video recordings. I have not been advised as such in specific terms but this my opinion based on the nature of the contract for... More
This matter came to life as an urgent chamber application in terms of Order 40 Rule 348A sub-rule (5a) of the High Court Rules 1971( stopping of sale to facilitate settlement of claims) on 25 November 2011. The relief that was being sought by Granary Investments Private Limited (herein after referred to as Granary Investments) was: More
This is an appeal against the whole judgment of the High Court handed down on 26 October 2016 dismissing the appellant’s application for specific performance with costs. More
Compared to the epic blood-and-thunder-legal duels daily fought in our courts, an opposed application for the postponement of a matter ordinarily becomes but a tepid scuffle. For that reason, courts will not normally dwell on such simple requests beyond the immediate need to furnish brief reasons for grant or refusal thereof. I will however, for reasons stated hereunder, linger slightly before disposing of the application for postponement of the trial cause now before me. More
In March 2016 the applicant Grandwell Holdings ( Grandwell) which owns a 50% shareholding in Mbada Diamonds [Private] Limited (Mbada), a joint venture initiative for diamond mining in Chiadzwa obtained an interim order under HC 1977 /16 (HH 193-16). More
This is a bail application pending trial. Applicant is jointly
charged with one Nyarai Magaya and Frederick Topia with one count of theft as defined in
section 113 of the Criminal Law [Codification and Reform] Act Chapter 9:23, and one count
of Money Laundering as defined in section 81 (1) of the Money Laundering and Proceeds of
Crime Act [Chapter 9:24]. More
Applicant seeks a rei vindicatio order. It seeks to recover its property retained by respondent.
The applicant is a body corporate duly constituted in terms of the Great Zimbabwe University Act [Chapter 25:24]. The respondent was an employee of the applicant holding the position of Chief Security Officer. The respondent holds property belonging to the applicant which property respondent was holding by virtue of his being an employee of the applicant. The property consists of guns, a security motor vehicle and office and gun cabinet keys. The respondent’s contract of employment with applicant has been terminated. More
This urgent chamber application was set down and heard on 23 August 2022. I reserved judgment to 5 September 2022 and pronounced my reasons for the decision to the parties in chambers. I have now been requested to furnish full reasons for the purposes of an appeal. These are they:
The application is premised on the following as per applicant’s founding affidavit.
The applicant is a body corporate bound by a Constitution. The first, fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh respondents are legal entities. The second respondent is the Minister of Local Government, Public Works and National Housing in his official... More
This is an appeal against an arbitral award per Honourable Shawatu P. which award was handed down on the 10th of June 2015. The appeal is opposed. The respondent also noted a cross appeal against the same arbitral award. The appellant having failed to file its Notice of Response to the cross-appeal the respondents prayer is that the cross appeal be allowed. The Court shall however revert to this point later in the judgment.
The material facts which are largely common cause are as follows. The respondents were employed by the appellant in various capacities. They occupied managerial positions. In... More
This is an appeal against both conviction and sentence. The appellant pleaded guilty to and was convicted of contravening S 60A (3) (b) of the Electricity Act [Chapter13:19], which penalises cutting, damaging, destruction of or interference with any apparatus for generating, transmitting, distributing or supplying electricity. He was sentenced to the mandatory minimum sentence of ten (10) years imprisonment after the Magistrates Court had found that there were no special circumstances which justified a penalty less than the minimum prescribed by statute. More
