Welcome to Midlands State University Library

Court Judgements



Browse all Court Judgements
This is an appeal against part of the judgment of the High Court, upholding the respondent’s claim of a 50 per cent share of an immoveable property registered in the appellant’s name pursuant to the distribution of property upon divorce. More

On 23 November 2016, in an action based on two alleged oral contracts, the High Court found in favour of the respondent and ordered the appellant to pay to the respondent with costs, the sums of CAD$89 810, US$17 477.00 and CAD$ 1 400 .00. This is an appeal against that order. More

After a full trial, the High Court made an order for the eviction of the appellant, and all claiming through her, from premises known as 8916 Hwiramiti Street, Chesvingo Suburb, Masvingo and for payment of arrear rentals in the sum of $14 000 as well as holding over damages in the sum of $6,67 per day. The court further ordered payment of interest at the prescribed rate together with costs of suit. This appeal is against that order. More

This is an appeal against the decision of the respondent employer’s disciplinary committee which found appellant employee guilty of misconduct and penalised her with dismissal. More

This is an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. The law on leave to appeal is settled. See CMED v Dombodzvuku SC 31-12.. A reading of the grounds of the intended appeal shows that applicants seeks to impugn the findings of fact by the court aquo that there was nothing remiss of the disciplinary committees conclusion that the employee was guilty since she favoured the committee with conflicting medical certificates on the same issue thus casting aspersions on the authenticity of same. More

The plaintiff is an avowed money lender whose business is to lend money to members of the public at an interest of 30% per month. She is not registered as such. She has sued the defendant for payment of a sum of $4 296-00 together with interest at the prescribed rate and costs of suit. More

The Appellant was employed by the Respondent as a revenue specialist based at Harare Port. Following a discovery that she had received gifts from Respondent’s clients she was charged in terms of Respondent’s Code of Conduct. Appellant was charged with a charge D17 alternatively D25 of the said Code of Conduct. The disciplinary committee found the Appellant not liable for the charge under D17 but found her liable under D25 of the Code. Appellant appealed to the Appeals Committee. The appeal was unsuccessful. She then noted an appeal against the appeals committee’s decision to this Court. More

On 28 August 2020, the plaintiffs issued summons against the first defendant. The action arose out of an alleged breach of an agreement of sale of immovable property and mortgage facilities concluded between each of the plaintiffs and the first defendant. More

On 8 September, 2010 I erroneously granted an order, following a chamber application, registering an arbitral award in favour of the applicant against the Ministry of Finance as if the correct respondent was Smallholder Micro-Irrigation Development Support Programme (“the Programme”). The Programme is donor-funded by the European Development Fund. Subsequent to the registration of the arbitral award, it was brought to my attention via my sister judge – Gowora J – who had dealt with an urgent chamber application by the Programme to stay the sale in execution of the Programme’s motor vehicles which had been attached pursuant to the... More

On 4th April 2016 at Harare, Arbitrator S Mugumisi issued an arbitration award. He dismissed the appellants’ claims against the respondent for an increase of their retrenchment packages. The appellants then appealed to this court. The respondent opposed the appeal. More

The Applicant’s appeal before this Court was dismissed on 20th June 2013. The Applicant intended to appeal against the dismissal but was out of time. The Applicant then filed an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court coupled with an application for condonation. Since this was an improper procedure the Applicant then withdrew both applications. Thereafter Applicant filed this application for condonation for late filing of the application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. More

This is an application for condonation for non-compliance with the Rules of this court and for an extension of time within which to file and serve a notice of review in terms of the same Rules. The application is not opposed by the 1st Respondent but is opposed by the 2nd Respondent. More

Appellant was employed by First Respondent as a disposal Supervisor. She was charged, found guilty and dismissed for breaching paragraph 9 and 13 (a) of the First Schedule of the Health Services Regulations 2006. The charges were of theft of, or making improper or unauthorized use of state property and corruption or dishonesty. The facts giving rising to the charges were that on 14 June 2013 during a routine search at ward A6 entrance at Parirenyatwa Group of Hospitals, appellant had been found in unauthorized possession of 10 ampoules of propofol, 1% Fresenius injection (20ml) and 10 sachets bacterex disinfectant... More

The delay in the preparation of this judgment is sincerely regretted. As can be seen from the dates of hearings the trial took long to complete. This was largely because as from 26 January 2011 the court had to adjourn on the promise that the plaintiff’s wife, one Anna Dube (Mrs Dube) would arrive from the United Kingdom to testify. After a long wait, she never came and the trial had to proceed without her. The background to this case is as follows:- On 2 February 2009 the plaintiff issued summons out of this court seeking the following relief:- “1.... More

This is an application for the confirmation of draft ruling in terms of section 93 of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01] (the Act). At the hearing of this matter, two preliminary points were raised by the second respondent who is the employer party. I use the term employer party loosely bearing in mind that the second respondent disputes that it employed the 1st Respondents. More