The first applicant, Heal Zimbabwe is a universitas with capacity to sue and be sued. It is represented by its Executive Director, Rashid Mahiya duly authorised by a resolution to that effect made by its board of Directors.
The second applicant is Tonderai Chiwanza, an adult male of Chitungwiza. He described himself as a former councillor for Chitungwiza Municipal Council and a human rights activist with “an inherent interest” in protecting the constitution. More
On the 8th August 2024 Arbitrator NC Mutiba issued an arbitral award in terms of which she ordered applicant to pay respondents retrenchment packages amounting to US$ 28,532.15. Applicant then applied to this Court for the review of the award in terms of Section 89 of the (1) (d1) Labour Act Chapter 28:01 hereafter called the Act. More
1. This is an application for rescission of a default judgment granted by this court on
4 November 2020. The present application was filed on 17 November 2020. It is opposed.
2. In order for an application for this nature to succeed the following requirements have to be addressed.
(i) The length of the delay in applying for the rescission must be explained.
(ii) The reason for the default.
(iii) Prospects of success.
(iv) Balance of convenience.
Redstar Wholesalers v See Livingstone Mutomba SC 142/04 and cases cited therein.
3. It was argued on behalf of the applicant that the... More
This is a court application in which the applicant seeks the rescission of a judgment which was granted by consent in case number HC 8603/19 on 28 October 2019. More
On 26 April 2018, the plaintiff issued summons claiming $1,000, 000 (One million dollars) being delictual damages for alleged defamatory utterances made by the defendant on national television and to a nationally distributed newspaper publication; an unconditional apology to the plaintiff on the front page of the Daily News; removal of an alleged defamatory article from the Daily News Website and costs of suit. On 10 May 2018, the defendant through his legal practitioners made a request for further particulars. On 20 May 2018, the plaintiff responded to the request by stating that the particulars requested were not necessary for... More
At the onset of oral argument in this court, applicant raised 3 (three) points in limine which respondent opposed. The points will be addressed ad seriatim. More
This is an application for a declarator to the effect that the applicant and her employees, agents and invitees are entitled to remain in quiet, peaceful and undisturbed occupation and use of a certain piece of land known as Lot 5 of Lot 1 of Mazone in the Mutare District of Manicaland Province measuring 494 hectares in extent and the eviction of the first respondent and all those claiming occupation through him from the said property
The applicant claims that she has personal right and interest to occupy and use the disputed land. She claims occupation and use of the... More
This is an application for direct access in terms of s 167(5) of the Constitution, as read with Rule 21(2) of the Constitutional Court Rules, 2016. In essence, the application challenges the decision of the Supreme Court (the court a quo) on the grounds that it violated the applicant’s fundamental rights under ss 56(1), 69(1) and 70(1) of the Constitution, which guarantee the right to equality and non-discrimination, the right to a fair trial, and the rights of an accused person. The applicant contends that the court a quo failed to properly adjudicate the appeal before it and to uphold... More
This matter was set down as an application for the stay of attachment in execution of a default consent order which was granted by the Court in a matter where Applicant employer and Respondent employee were involved in a labour dispute where the Respondent had been dismissed from employment by the Applicant. More
On 1 September 2017 the first applicant was served with the first respondent’s notification of intention to withdraw the offer letter dated 30 August 2017.The applicants legal practitioners and respondents exchanged correspondence about the whole process of the first respondent’s intended withdrawal of offer letter but nothing came out of it. On 26 September 2017 the applicants got the notification of the withdrawal of the offer letter from the first respondent. On the same date an offer letter was granted to the second respondent. The offer letter granted to the second respondent concerned an area of 250 hectares. The remainder... More
The applicant herein is the registered owner of an immovable property located at 40 Josiah Tongogara Avenue, Harare. On 28 September 2004 in terms of a written agreement, the applicant let the premises to the first respondent for a period of one year with effect from 1 September 2004 to 31 August 2005. Certain differences have arisen between the parties and the applicant has approached this court on motion for an order for the eviction of the first respondent and all those claiming through it from the premises. The second respondent entered into a surety ship agreement with the applicant... More
In this application, the applicant seeks the following relief:-
1. A declaration that the refusal by the Magistrate to refer the issues raised by the applicant to the Supreme Court is wrong at law and consequently a breach of the applicant’s right to the protection of the law enshrined in section 18(1) of the former Constitution of Zimbabwe.
2. A declaration that the decision by the Attorney-General to proceed with the prosecution of the applicant more than five years after the alleged commission of the offence is a violation of the applicant’s right to the protection of the law under... More
The plaintiff issued summons against the defendant, claiming payment of $34 378.06 for services rendered and $50 441.49 being damages for breach of contract.The defendant raised a special plea that, since the plaintiff’s claim is based on a contract which provides for a dispute resolution mechanism for all contractual matters, the action should be stayed pending referral of the dispute in terms of Annexure 3, Clauses 4.1, 24 and 25 thereof. More
On the 10th July 2017 at Mutare, applicant in her capacity as a Designated Agent issued a ruling. She ordered 1st respondent (employer) to “restart the (retrenchment) process afresh.” The 2nd to 37th respondents were the employees who had been retrenched. Apparently, the employer did not comply with the ruling. Applicant then applied to this Court for the confirmation of her ruling in terms of section 93(5a) of the Labour Act Chapter 28:01, hereafter called the Act. More
This appeal raiseS one issue for consideration, the interpretation of fees as used in section 8.3 of Statutory Instrument 60 of 2013 the Collective Bargaining Agreement: Welfare and Educational Institutions, “the agreement”.
The respondents are employed by the appellant in different capacities. In terms of theapplicable Collective Bargaining Agreement the appellant was supposed to contribute 75% of fees for respondents as a benefit. A dispute ensued where it was alleged that appellant failed to comply with the provision of the agreement. The matter was referred to an arbitrator to determine whether the term fees used in the agreement included tuition... More
