This is an application for review of a determination made by the Designated Agent, E. Machikiti on the 13th of July, 2020. The application is premised on Section 92 EE of the Labour Act [Cap 28:01]. The application is opposed. More
This is an appeal against the decision of the Respondent Disciplinary Authority which decision resulted in the dismissal of Appellant from employment with effect from after duty on the 6th of December, 2019. The appeal is opposed. More
There has been an inordinate delay in the hand down of this judgment. My most sincere apologies to the parties involved. This is an application for confirmation of a draft ruling made on the 27th February 2017 by the Applicant in her capacity as Designated Agent for the NEC Welfare and Educational Institutions. The application is premised on the provisions of Section 95 (5a) and (b) of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01] hereafter referred to as (the Act.) More
At the conclusion of submissions made at the hearing of this matter, I gave an ex tempore judgment in which I partially granted the application for review. The following are the full reasons for the ex tempore judgment. More
This is an application for late noting of review of the alleged dismissal from employment by the respondent. It is alleged that they were dismissed from employment in January 2011. There is no decision by the Tribunal to be reviewed. There was no hearing that was conducted at the work place. They were just informed by the headmaster that their services were no longer required by the school. There is no decision to be reviewed in this case. Parties should follow other channels, to redress their grievance. More
This is an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against the decision of this Court dated 15 February 2014.
The respondent has raised a point in limine by stating that the applicant is not properly before this Court as he has not complied with Rule 14 as read with section 89 (2) (d) of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01] Form LC1. More
This is an application for an order declaring the respondent’s alleged position that Zimbabwe dollar input tax cannot be offset against United States dollar denominated output tax at the prevailing interbank rate in computing value added tax in terms of s 15 and s 28, as read together with s 38(4) of the Value Added Tax Act [Chapter 23:12] to be unlawful and for the respondent to be ordered to re-assess the applicant’s value added tax obligations “for the relevant periods” in accordance with s 15, 28 and 38(4) “as declared herein”. The substance of the relief being sought by... More
This is a court application for revival of a court order in Case number HC 8256/16. The court order was granted on 28 December 2016 in favour of the Applicant against both first and second Respondents as surety and guarantor respectively, wherein the respondents were ordered to pay a sum of US$ 773 904.52 plus interest on the said capital sum of US$651 332.00 at the agreed rate of 7% per annum. Both respondents made arrangements to settle the debt owed to the Applicant through a Non-Resident Transitional Account held by CBZ Bank Limited for onward transmission to Applicant’s foreign... More
1. The applicant seeks an order for confirmation of a provisional order granted on the following terms;
“TERMS OF THE FINAL ORDER SOUGHT
That you show cause why a final order should not be made in the following terms
1. The 1st respondent’s Notice headed “licensing of Petroleum Sector Operators in 2020” date stamped 9 March 20202 be and is hereby declared null and void.
2. The 1st respondent’s board be and is hereby declared improperly constituted and thereby null and void.
3. 1st respondent shall pay the costs of suit.” More
Shumba owned a residential of property in South Africa. It was under mortgage. He failed to service his mortgage bond. The bank foreclosed on the mortgage bond. He was desperate to avoid the sale of his property by auction. He approached Jayesh Shah for a loan in order to save his property from imminent auction. They concluded an agreement in South Africa in terms of which Jayesh Shah remitted money to Shumba’s legal practitioners in South Africa. The property was not auctioned on the due date. Instead the legal practitioners passed a mortgage bond over the property in favour of... More
This is an application for review wherein the applicant seeks the setting aside the respondent’s decision to declare one of its trucks and two trailers (the vehicles) declared forfeit to the State. The forfeiture followed the vehicles’ irregular importation into the country on a temporary import permit. The applicant claims that the decision to forfeit those vehicles was tainted by gross unreasonableness and gross irrationality lending itself to being set aside on review. Consequent to such setting aside of the respondent’s decision, the applicant prays that the vehicles be released to it. More
The dispute between the parties is concerned with a share certificate in the name of Gilbert Muponda of ENG. On 18th February 2004 this Honourable Court granted an order in favour of the applicant as against the said Muponda, one Nyasha Watyoka and ENG Asset Management (Pvt) Ltd. In terms of the order aforesaid Watyoka and Muponda were held personally liable for all debts and liabilities due by the asset management company to the applicant. This court also ordered that the personal properties of the two be sold in execution for the due payment of the amount of $499 782... More
This is a chamber application for leave to admit into evidence a supplementary opposing affidavit earlier filed without the leave of the court.
BACKGROUND
The background to this matter is that the respondent filed an application under HC 1130/11 to compel the applicant to transfer stand 13981 Khami Road Extension, Kelvin West, Bulawayo into its name on 3 February 2011.Following this the applicant in this application who is the respondent in HC 1130/11 filed its opposing papers followed by an answering affidavit from the first respondent. The applicant subsequently filed a supplementary opposing affidavit[hereinafter referred to as the supplementary or... More
: The applicant is an incorporation under provisional liquidation and is, through its provisional liquidator, seeking an interlocutory interdict preventing the second respondent from transferring, encumbering or dealing with stand 5205 Salisbury Township of Salisbury Township lands (“the property”). It also seeks an interlocutory interdict preventing the fourth respondent, a commercial bank, from releasing the purchase price of US$280 000-00 to anyone or registering any bond or other form of security on the title deed of the property and another interlocutory interdict against the third respondent, the Registrar of Deeds, from processing any transfer, mortgage bond or other security on... More
