I heard this application on 7 March 2022. I delivered an ex tempore judgment in which I dismissed it with costs. On 4 April, 2022 the second respondent wrote requesting written reasons for my decision. My reasons are these:
The applicant, one Agson Mafuta Chioza (“Chioza”) sued the Minister of Lands, Agriculture, Water & Rural Resettlement (“the Minister”) and one Josiah Chikowore (“Chikowore”) who are respectively the first and second respondents in this application. He moved me to, among other relief, direct that:
i) the agreement of a farm for a farm exchange between the Minister and him is binding;... More
This is an application for review of the decision of the second Respondent who made an order in favour of the 1st Respondent in a case of an alleged unfair labour practice.
The basic grounds of the review are that the 2nd Respondent in his capacity as an arbitrator in a matter between the 1st Respondent and one Wassi, erred by exceeding his jurisdiction when he substituted Wassi with the Applicant as the Respondent in the matter which was before him. He did so well knowing that the matter before him had been filed as a matter between Wassi and... More
This is an appeal against confirmatory proceedings conducted by the Labour Court on 8 September 2017 in terms of s 93(5) of the Labour Act. At the end of the proceedings the Labour Court made a number of alterations to the draft ruling issued by the Labour Officer. More
In this urgent application for a provisional order the applicant prays for relief as set out as follows;
FINAL ORDER SOUGHT
1. That the stay of execution is hereby granted
2. Respondents shall pay costs of suit on an attorney-client scale. More
The Respondent was employed as a Captain. He was initially suspended for an alleged misconduct on the 18th of November, 2008. He was re-suspended by the Appellant on the 5th of December 2008 for three alleged acts of misconduct namely;
a) conduct on omission inconsistent with the fulfilment of the express or implied conditions of his contract.
b) absence from work for a period of five (5) or more working days without leave or more working days with leave or reasonable cause or alternatively;
c) habitual and substantial neglect of duty.” More
There has been a delay in the handing down of this judgement which was prepared in 2017. I do hereby extend my apologies to the parties.
INTRODUCTION
The appeal was noted against an arbitral award handed down on the 30th July, 2015 per the Honourable Dr T.N Sambureni, Arbitrator. The appeal is opposed.
BACKGROUND FACTS
The Respondent was employed by the Appellant as a Senior Manager – Finance. On 16 December, 2009 the Appellant through its Human Resources Manager wrote to the Respondent notifying him of its intention to retrench him. More
The applicants brought the above application under a certificate of urgency. In the interim they sought the release of certain goods, mostly vehicles, that had been attached in execution. It was also sought as an interim relief an order that the respondents should pay any storage costs that might have been incurred as a result of the attachment of the assets. For the final order it was sought that the actions of the respondents be declared illegal for allegedlycontravening s9A of the Finance Act [No2] of 2012 [sic] as read with the State Liabilities Act, [Cap 8:14]. One has to... More
This is an application for condonation of late noting of Review. The facts are common cause. The Applicant was convicted on 12 May 2011 on a Charge of contravening para 14(3) of the First Schedule to the Defence Act [Chapter 11.02] which subsequently led to the convening of a Board of Suitability leading to the dismissal of the applicant from the Airforce of Zimbabwe. The applicant attempted to note his appeal to the Defence Forces Service Commission which unfortunately did not go through as it was out of time and condonation was denied. Applicant had noted his appeal after 9... More
This is an urgent chamber application based on spoliation as well as breach of s 68 of the Constitution and s 3 (1) (a) of the AJA. It bears giving the background to this matter so as to put the relief being sought in context. The applicant is a transporter whose business involves ferrying various goods including petrol and diesel. Sometime at the end of November 2022, the applicant was contracted by Pioneer Petroleum & Gas Limited, in Zambia, to carry petrol from Mozambique to Zambia via Zimbabwe, which consignment was ferried in two trucks. The trucks entered Zimbabwe on... More
Applicant company is duly registered in terms of the laws of Mozambique and is in the business of providing transport services. Applicant was hired by Fungai Makombote, a Zimbabwean, to transport fresh garlic from Beira to Harare via Forbes Border Post. Fungai Makombote had imported the garlic from China. Fungai Makombote also contracted a clearing agent at Forbes Border Post called Afrologistics Private Limited to handle the clearance of the goods in transit. The agent committed fraudulent declarations of the goods culminating in the seizure of both the garlic and the carrier, applicant’s truck. More
This is an application for rescission of a consent order made in terms of rule 449 (1) (a) of the High Court Rules, 1971 (which were then applicable) where the applicant who is the husband of the now deceased, Millicent Tutsimane Tandile Akinjide-Obonyo, seeks an order against her estate represented Clever Mandizvidza the duly appointed executor. The relief sought is the following: More
This is an application for the review of a decision of the Magistrates Court. The applicant believes that the trial court’s decision in refusing to grant a certificate for the termination of the minor child’s pregnancy was bad in law in that she states that the Magistrates determination ought not to have been premised on the issue of consent. Applicant submits that the courta quo ought to have granted the certificate for termination on the basis that there was a reasonably possibility that the foetus was conceived as a result of unlawful intercourse. More
The facts relevant to the resolution of this appeal are largely common cause. The first respondent is the liquidator of Interfin Banking Corporation, (“Interfin”) which is undergoing final liquidation. The second respondent is the company secretary of the first respondent whom the appellant elected to join as a party to the proceedings in her personal capacity for unclear reasons. More
