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
The applicant issued summons on the 30th of October 2017 against the respondents claiming orders confirming the cancellation of the lease agreement entered between the parties, ejectment of respondents and all those claiming occupation through them from the premises at No. 174 Munondo Street, Ruwa Industrial Park, Harare, payment of the arrear electricity bill calculated from the 1st of May 2016 to date of ejectment, payment of the arrear water and rates levies calculated from the 1st of May 2016 to date of ejectment, payment of arrear rentals amounting to US$5 600.00, payment of holding over damages of US$40.00 a... More
This urgent application for an interim interdict was referred to me on 26 July 2018 and I heard it on 27 July 2018. I dismissed the application. On 17 September 2018, a request was made by the applicant’s legal practitioners for the reasons, these are they.
The facts of this matter are straight forward. The applicant and the respondent entered into a joint venture agreement “the agreement”. In terms of the agreement the applicant was to provide land development services to the respondent a landowner of stand 1 and 2 Haydon Township of Haydon. It was a material term of... More
On the 1st November 2021 at Harare, F. Mutambirwa N.O. in her capacity as a
Designated Agent (DA) made a determination. She ordered appellant (employer) to pay
respondent (employee) various amounts of money for outstanding service pay, notice pay,
leave pay, overtime, unpaid wages and housing allowance. The employer then appealed the
determination to this Court in terms of section 92D of the Labour Act Chapter 28:01. The
employee opposed the appeal. More
This is a contested application for bail pending trial. Applicant is facing 2 counts of rape in contravention of section 65 (1) of the Criminal Law Codification and Reform Act (Chapter 9:23). He faces a further charge of impersonating a public official as defined in section 179 (1) of the Criminal Code. Applicant faces further charges of fraud and theft. In the rape charge, it is alleged that the applicant raped two complainants he had hired as Nurse Aides. On the charge of impersonation he allegedly misrepresented to Dumisani Mhlanga, the Managing Director of Ingwebu Breweries that he was the... More
DUBE-BANDA J:This is an application for bail pending appeal. The applicant was arraigned before the Regional Magistrate’s Court sitting in Bulawayo, on two counts of rape as defined in section 65 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23]. The allegations against him were briefly as follows: that on a date to the prosecutor unknown, but sometime during the month of April 2019, at number 28 Northway Burnside (house) Bulawayo he had sexual intercourse several times and on different occasions with the two complaints without their consent or realizing that there was a real risk or possibility that... More
The Appellant is appealing against the decision of the Appeals Committee. The grounds of appeal are as follows:-
“The Respondent erred by failing to produce minutes of the Appeals Committee. The ‘purported’ minutes ‘even’ determination are mischievous and calculated to cause miscarriage of justice. The ‘purported’ admissions in the ‘so called minutes’ are all a product of malicious falsehoods contradictory to the Appellant’s grounds of appeal before the Appeals Committee and a biased and futile effort to uphold traverse justice. The recordby the Respondent is misleading and not reflective of the proceedings. More
The Appellant was a school teacher at Domboremavhu Secondary School in 1997 and during that period, he was charged for having an improper association with a school pupil, convicted and discharged from the teaching service on 22 May, 1998. He appealed to the Labour Court but before the appeal was heard, the Commission referred the case for a magisterial inquiry which was conducted from 7 June, 2009 to 9 June, 2009. During the inquiry, the Appellant and the pupil both denied that they had an improper association. The Appellant’s evidence during the inquiry was that he was being framed. At... More
