In this urgent court application for a declaratory order, the applicant seeks the following order:
“IT IS ORDERED AS FOLLOWS:
1. It be and is hereby declared that:
a. The applicant having sold its product FCA EX- works the “gross fair market value” for purposes of s 37(9) of the Finance Act [Chapter 23:04] is the face value of the invoice or price the mineral was sold at the place of such sale, namely in Zimbabwe.
b. The exclusion of the cost of freight by reason of the terms of sale was not a deduction made by the applicant, neither... More
This is an urgent chamber application for an interim interdict and a declarator made in terms of s 14 of the High Court Act. The provisional order sought is set out as follows:
“TERMS OF FINAL ORDER SOUGHT
1. The provisional order be and is hereby confirmed.
2. An order declaring that mining royalties owed in terms of the Mines and Minerals Act cannot be enforced by garnishee under s 58 of the Income Tax Act
[Chapter 23:06]. More
This is an application for bail pending trial. Applicant is being charged with the crime of armed robbery as defined in section 126 of the Criminal Law [Codification and Reform] Act, Chapter 9:23. On the 29 April 2020, applicant appeared before the Magistrates Court, Bulawayo, whereupon he was placed on remand and detained in custody. More
The applicant is a company registered in terms of the laws of South Africa. It is a peregrine. The applicant filed this urgent application for a provisional order whose terms were couched as follows –
“TERMS OF FINAL ORDER SOUGHT
1. The applicant be and is hereby declared the sole and rightful owner of a certain movable property being a Gold Recovery Plant presently situated at 2nd respondent’s mining location in Hwedza as well as the 8 tone crusher unit presently situated at Number 35 Paisley Road, Corner Stirling Road, Workington, Harare.
2. The respondents be and is hereby barred,... More
This is an appeal and cross appeal against the decision of the National Employment Council Appeals Board. The Board ordered that the Appellant ‘Mavhunga’ be dismissed and awarded back pay from July 2, 2008 to March 2, 2012. Both parties noted appeals against the decision at different times. The two matters were consolidated after an application to this court was made. For the avoidance of confusion in the terms parties would be referred to in their names. More
At the onset of oral argument in this Court respondent raised 2 points in limine which appellant opposed. Respondent abandoned the other points mentioned in his papers. The points shall be dealt with herein ad seriatim. More
The relief sought on appeal is incompetent since the Applicant prays for reinstatement when that was not the prevailing position prior to the dismissal. Prior to the dismissal on the 14th August, 2020, the Applicant was suspended from employment on the 6th July, 2020. The status quo that has to be restored is therefore the position of suspension and not the reinstatement. More
Applicant applied to this Court for condonation of a late appeal in terms of Rule 22 of the Labour Court Rules S.I. 150/17. Respondent opposed the application. The decision sought to be appealed was made by the Appeals Officer on the 14th September 2020. In terms of Rule 19 applicant ought to have appealed to this Court within 21 (twenty-one) days of that decision. He did not do so. He filed an application for condonation in March 2022 under reference LC/H/235/22. Same was struck off the roll on 5th August 2022. He filed another application for condonation on 22nd September... More
For a party seeking the registration of a caveat to succeed in obtaining a court order for that purpose, he or she must establish that he/she has a legal interest in the property that needs to be protected by means of a caveat. A caveat is essentially an encumbrance placed on a property restricting any dealings in respect of and alienation of the property. More
This matter in my view highlights some of the glaring conflicts between customary law and the general law. This matter presented itself before me in chambers on a certificate of urgency in terms of r 244 of the High Court Rules 1971 as amended. More
On 23rd February, 2011 the Honourable L. Maburutse made an arbitration award. In terms thereof, he dismissed Appellants’ claim of unlawful termination of their employment by Respondent. Appellants then appealed to this Court against the award. More
Applicants applied to this Court for joinder in terms of Rule 33(2) of the Labour Court Rules, 2017. At that onset of oral argument respondent raised a point in limine which applicants opposed. More
Applicants applied to this Court for their joinder to the appeal pending under reference LCH 74/23. The application was made in terms of Rule 33(2) of the Labour Court Rules, 2017. Respondent opposed the application. More
This is an urgent application for a mandamus van spolie. The facts relied upon by the applicant are as follows:
The applicant and the 1st respondent are acquaintances. Sometime in November 2011, the 1st respondent approached the applicant seeking help to find a buyer for her cement. The applicant facilitated an arrangement between the 1st respondent and an unidentified third party. The 1st respondent and the third party concluded their transaction. The 1st responded requested to use the applicant’s bank account for the deposit of the purchase price as she did not have a bank account of her own. The... More
Pursuant to the conviction and sentence for Attempted Murder as defined in s 189 (1) as read with s 47 (1) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23] the appellant lodged the present appeal with this court. The appellant a girlfriend to the complainant was convicted of unlawfully stabbing the complainant one Josam Mapinge in circumstances where there was realisation that there was a real risk or possibility that murder may be committed. The Appellant who stabbed the complainant Josam Mapinge with a knife once in the abdomen was convicted of attempted murder and sentenced to 6... More
