Applicant seeks a rei vindicatio order. It seeks to recover its property retained by respondent.
The applicant is a body corporate duly constituted in terms of the Great Zimbabwe University Act [Chapter 25:24]. The respondent was an employee of the applicant holding the position of Chief Security Officer. The respondent holds property belonging to the applicant which property respondent was holding by virtue of his being an employee of the applicant. The property consists of guns, a security motor vehicle and office and gun cabinet keys. The respondent’s contract of employment with applicant has been terminated. More
This urgent chamber application was set down and heard on 23 August 2022. I reserved judgment to 5 September 2022 and pronounced my reasons for the decision to the parties in chambers. I have now been requested to furnish full reasons for the purposes of an appeal. These are they:
The application is premised on the following as per applicant’s founding affidavit.
The applicant is a body corporate bound by a Constitution. The first, fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh respondents are legal entities. The second respondent is the Minister of Local Government, Public Works and National Housing in his official... More
This is an appeal against an arbitral award per Honourable Shawatu P. which award was handed down on the 10th of June 2015. The appeal is opposed. The respondent also noted a cross appeal against the same arbitral award. The appellant having failed to file its Notice of Response to the cross-appeal the respondents prayer is that the cross appeal be allowed. The Court shall however revert to this point later in the judgment.
The material facts which are largely common cause are as follows. The respondents were employed by the appellant in various capacities. They occupied managerial positions. In... More
This is an appeal against both conviction and sentence. The appellant pleaded guilty to and was convicted of contravening S 60A (3) (b) of the Electricity Act [Chapter13:19], which penalises cutting, damaging, destruction of or interference with any apparatus for generating, transmitting, distributing or supplying electricity. He was sentenced to the mandatory minimum sentence of ten (10) years imprisonment after the Magistrates Court had found that there were no special circumstances which justified a penalty less than the minimum prescribed by statute. More
This is an appeal against part of the judgment of the High Court (the court a quo) sitting at Masvingo handed down on 1 June 2022 in which the court a quo granted the first respondent’s claim for damages for loss of business and the replacement value of her commuter omnibus. More
On 19th November 2012 the Honourable T.R. Viriri made an arbitration award. In terms thereof, he ordered Appellant to either reinstate Respondent’s employment or pay her damages in lieu of reinstatement. Appellant then appealed to this Court against the award. Respondent opposed the appeal. More
This is an application for interim relief in terms of s 92 E (3) of the Labour Act. The Applicants are seeking to have the Court direct the Respondent employer to pay them the retrenchment package which was awarded in their favour by the Minister on 6 November 2012. More
DUBE-BANDA J: This matter was set down on 11 March 2021 in the unopposed motion court. When it was called, Mr Ngwenya, counsel for the applicant then, submitted that the papers were in order, and prayed that the provisional order be confirmed in terms of the draft order. I raised a query that the matter was opposed, and it could not be dealt with in the unopposed motion court. I noted from the file that this matter had previously been set-down in the unopposed motion court, and was removed from the roll. Counsel seemed to agree that indeed the matter... More
The plaintiff issued summons seeking the following relief:
(a) Reinstating and reversing the ownership of Stand 205 Good Hope Township of Subdivision D of Goodhope, situate in the District of Salisbury measuring 2 695 square metres under Deed of Transfer Number 444/08 (hereinafter referred to as “the property”);
(b) Cancellation of Deed of Transfer Number 3681/2011 in favour of the first defendant; and
(c) Costs on an attorney and client scale. More
