Applicant has filed this application for rescission of judgment seeking to rescind an order granted by this court on 2 March 2020 under HC 138/20 which order was to the effect of appointing 1st respondent as a curator bonis of the applicant’s estate. Applicant alleges that on 21 January 2020 1st respondent sought an order through an ex parte application to the effect that applicant was of poor health and therefore was mentally incapacitated and could not control her life and decisions. 1st respondent was then granted such an order ex parte. More
The appellants were former employees of the respondent. Their contracts were lawfully terminated. After the termination of their contracts of employment, they raised against their former employer a claim for overtime worked. More
This was an application for variation of a divorce order granted in 2007. The applicant sought variation of the clause in the order which read as follows:
“b) The defendant shall have the first option to buy out the plaintiff of her 50% share
in the property within a month of the date of evaluation.” More
The plaintiff and defendant are husband and wife respectively. They married each other at Harare on 27 June 2006 in terms of the Marriage Act [Cap 5:11]. The marriage was blessed with one minor child Tafadzwa Gova, a male, born on 25 October 2007. More
The order sought follows a default judgment involving same parties which was issued under case number 4541/21. At the commencement of the application the respondents raised an objection in what they term dirty hands approach. They argued that the applicants are fugitives from justice and as such could not have audience with the court. Specifically that they are on warrants of arrests. Initially the applicants argued that the said warrants were dealt with and respondents were then supposed to offer proof to that effect, either in the form of a magistrates court record or otherwise. With the events unfolding it... More
"there was a society of men among us, bred up from their youth in the art of proving, by words multiplied for the purpose, that white is black, and black is white, according as they are paid. To this society all the rest of the people are slaves.”
"In pleading, they studiously avoid entering into the merits of the cause; but are loud, violent, and tedious, in dwelling upon all circumstances which are not to the purpose. For instance, in the case already mentioned; they never desire to know what claim or title my adversary has to my cow; but... More
This is an appeal against a judgment of the Labour Court handed down in May 2013 which dismissed the appellant’s appeal after a consideration of the merits. After perusing the record and hearing submissions from parties, the court upheld the preliminary point that was raised by the respondent and dismissed the appeal. Reasons for the order have been requested by the appellant. More
There has been an inordinate delay in delivering judgment in this matter. It was a criminal appeal from the magistrates’ court. We heard argument on 2 August 2017 and reserved judgment. My Brother, MAWADZE J, was the lead judge in the case. It was hoped to deliver judgment in the forthcoming weeks. It was not to be. A dreadful family tragedy struck and scuttled all the work in progress, leaving the station somewhat disoriented for some considerable time afterwards. A horrific traffic accident claimed the lives of the Judge’s beloved wife; his driver and his sister-in-law. May the souls of... More
: 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 matter was brought to me in terms of Rules 34 of the Labour Court Rules, 2017.
This is an application which is titled as follows:
“Take note that I make this application in terms of the Labour Act 17 Section 92 C (i) (a) (b) ( ) with the heading which say Rescission or Alteration by Labour Court of its Own Decisions)” More
