The applicant in this matter seeks an anticipatory interdict to preclude the termination of the salary and benefits due to him in his capacity as an employee of the respondent trade union.
The applicant was elected to the post of senior vice-president at the trade union’s congress held in the year 2000. By virtue of Article 8 of the respondent’s constitution, the applicant simultaneously became a full-time employee of the respondent.
At the last congress of the respondent, which was held in August 2005, the applicant was not re-elected to the post of vice-president. He then instituted an application in... More
The applicant seeks a declaratur. The relief sought is set out in the draft order as follows:
“IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1. That the application for Declaratur be and is hereby granted.
2. That the garnishee order issued on 8 May 2019 against the Applicant for payment in United States dollars is invalid and is hereby set aside.
3. It is specifically declared that:
3.1 the debt of US$ 29 115.12 in terms of order dated 25th October 2017 by Honourable Justice Charewa is deemed to be valued in RTGS dollars at a rate of one-to-one to the United States... More
I heard this matter on 14 September, 2020. I delivered an ex tempore judgment in which I granted the applicant’s prayer.
On 2 October, 2020 the first and second respondents wrote to the High Court registrar. They requested reasons for my decision. They indicated that they wanted to appeal my decision. The reasons are these:
The applicant purchased from one Cyprian Musarurwa (“Musarurwa”), who is now late, a certain piece of land which is situated in the district of Salisbury called stand 282 Chadcombe Township of Stand 221B Chadcombe Township (“the property”). It is 4109 square metres in extent and... More
The applicant is the owner of a certain property known as No 38 Wansford Townhouses being an undivided share of Stand 15125 Salisbury Township (“the property”) which it holds by Deed of Transfer No 2893/2002. It was previously owned by the Mining Industry Pension Fund (“MIPF”). More
The applicant is a housing consortium with a membership of eleven cooperative societies.
The applicant occupies the remainder of GlenEagles farm (Budiriro 5) Harare.
Its application for regularisation of occupation is currently before the respondent for determination.
The allegation is made that thirty members of the applicant are in occupation and about 200 families had erected temporary structures on the land in question.
On 9 August 2018 the respondent delivered a notice to the applicant in terms of clause 18(2) of the Urban Council’s (Model) USe and Occupation of Land and Buildings) By-Laws 1979 Statutory Instrument 109 of 1979. More
This matter was placed before me as an application for review. It was filed pursuant to Rule 14 of the Labour Court Rules, 2017. The application is opposed. The Respondent party was directed by the Court on the date of hearing, and duly filed its Notice of Response and Heads of Argument on the 15 June, 2022. The parties thereafter requested the court to hand down its judgment based on their written submissions. More
This is an appeal against conviction only. The appellant was conviction only. The appellant was convicted of culpable homicide as defined in S 49 of the Code. The culpable homicide charge emanated from a road traffic accident that took place at the intersection of Lobengula Road and the Harare - Mutare highway. More
The Appellant was employed by the Respondent as the Chief Assayer. Part of his duties included keeping safe and secure samples received in the assay laboratory from various mines. It was also not in dispute that a spare key to the safe had been missing for in excess of seventeen years and had never been found. On the 10th of May, 2012 the Appellant in the company of two others, opened the safe and discovered that nine gold bullion samples were missing. The Appellant had been asked to release the gold bullion samples in question. The Appellant had no idea... More
It was Appellant’s submission that the notice of appeal was filed and served on the Respondent on the 15th October, 2015. Respondent was required, in terms of the Rules to file his response within 14 days to wit by the 4th November, 2015. Respondent filed his response on the 6th November, 2015 i.e. 2 days out of time.
Respondent did not apply for condonation of late filing of the response neither did he give an explanation for the late filing. More
This is a chamber application for condonation of the late noting of appeal and extension of time within which to appeal purportedly in terms of r 38(1) of the Supreme Court Rules 2018.
The brief facts giving rise to this application maybe stated as follows:-
On 22 September 2016, the first respondent made a decision allowing the second respondent to effect developments on Stand 18962 Boundary Road, Eastlea Harare, whose location the applicant contends is a wetland. The decision was made under s 130(3) of the Environment Management Act [Chapter 20:27]. More
It has never ceased to amaze me how some of our citizens have developed this insatiable desire for litigation even in circumstances where clearly the odds are heavily stacked against them. This is one such a case and such conduct must be discouraged.
The facts which are common cause in this case can be summarised as follows: More
On 28 June 2012 the applicant filed the instant application. It was not until 7 November that this matter had to be argued as an opposed application in Court.
When the two counsels appeared before me to argue this matter, the first respondent’s counsel raised two points in limine which he hoped would dispose of the matter in the first respondent’s favour without dealing with the matter on merits. The 1st point in limine taken by counsel for the first respondent for the first time ever was to challenge the status of the deponent to the applicant’s founding affidavit. It... More
At the onset of oral argument in this Court respondent raised 2 (two) points in limine which applicant opposed.
The points shall be dealt with ad seriatim More
This is an appeal against an award quantifying damages to be paid to respondent. Respondent was employed by the appellant and was dismissed. The arbitrator ruled that the dismissal was unlawful and he should be reinstated. Appellant did not reinstate respondent and did not appeal against the award. Respondent approached the arbitrator for quantification of damages. In calculating damages the arbitrator stated;
“In my own opinion the period within which the complainant can be reasonably expected to find alternative employment is 12 months considering the unemployment level in the country.” More
