The plaintiff and the defendant are husband and wife. They married on 7 June 2002 in terms of the Marriages Act [Cap 5:11]. The parties have one minor child Tamika Madalitso Kasambara (born 17 September 2006). The plaintiff has instituted these proceedings seeking a decree of divorce, custody of the minor child and division of their movable and immovable property. At a Pre- Trial Conference before MAKONI J the parties agreed that their marriage had irretrievably broken down. They also entered into a deed of settlement wherein they agreed on the issue of custody and access to the minor child... More
This is an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court in terms of section 92 F (2) of the Labour Act (Chapter 28:01).
Applicant’s prospective grounds of appeal are couched as follows;
1. The court a quo erred in concluding that the applicant made an admission during the hearing proceedings that the figures were not exact where in actual fact a query was raised disputing the correctness of the minutes.
2. The court a quo erred in making a decision that the evidence was sufficient whereas the evidence which was relied upon was drawn from CCTV which was... More
This is an appeal from the decision of Respondent’s Appeals Committee. Appellant was in the employ of the Respondent. Following Appellant’s submission of documents claiming overtime for work done, investigations were instituted. This related to overtime claimed in the period from 22 February 2023 to 11 march 2023. More
This is an urgent application for the custody of Matilda Panashe Shonhiwa a girl born on 13 June 2002. At the hearing of the matter I dismissed the application and gave an ex tempore judgment. Applicant has since sought written reasons for my judgment and I give them herein. The child being the subject matter of this application is aged about 17 years old. She has been staying with her biological father and her step mother. On one day she left home for school and she never returned. She left school in a taxi that she had no money to... More
This is an application for quantification of damages arising from an order by the Labour Court, where it ruled that the applicant’s dismissal was wrongful and that he had to be reinstated by the respondent company to his original position without loss of salary or benefits or alternatively that he be paid damages in place of reinstatement in a sum to be mutually agreed by the parties or an amount to be set by the court after quantification of the same. More
At the hearing of a condonation for late noting of an appeal by the applicant employee the respondent raised points in limine which are the subject of this judgment. The respondent contends that the applicant is prematurely before the court since the Works Council decision which is the one appealable to the Supreme court was only given to the applicant on 15 October 2020. To that extent appellant had up to 4 November 2020 to file his appeal. His condonation application of 13 October 2021 is therefore prematurely before the court. More
This is an application for the registration of an award issued in favour of the applicants under the Labour Act on 30 March 2010. The registration is sought in terms of s 98 (14) of the Labour Act [Cap 2801] (“the Act”). The respondent opposes the granting of the relief being sought. More
The parties appeared before me for a Pre-Trial Conference. The facts in this case are mostly common cause. All the parties are related. The plaintiff is the father of the defendants. The plaintiff’s late wife is the mother to the defendants. The plaintiff is the Executor Dative and also a beneficiary to the Estate of Nyembesi Kapungu. All defendants are also beneficiaries. At the center of the dispute is Stand Number 9208 Paradise Park, Highfield, Harare. Under Case No. HC 6089/21 this Honourable Court granted anorder to the plaintiff to allow the sale of the same immovable property, to enable... More
This is an appeal against the determination of the respondent’s Appeals Officer handed down on 11 November 2020, which upheld the decision of the Disciplinary Authority, in terms of which the appellant was found guilty of misconduct and dismissed from employment. More
Appellants have approached this Court for relief after leaving Respondent’s employment. The facts show that Appellants were employed on fixed term contracts which were periodically renewed by Respondent. When these contracts were not subsequently renewed, they commenced the litigation process up to the Arbitrator. The Arbitrator ruled in favour of Respondent and the Appellants have appealed against that decision. More
This is an appeal against the decision of the Appeals Committee issued on 20 April 2015. Appellant was employed by respondent as a messenger based at Bindura. He was suspended from duty following allegations of converting or attempting to convert respondent’s monies to his own use. He was arraigned before a Disciplinary Committee and was convicted. After conviction a dismissal penalty was imposed. Appellant was aggrieved and lodged an internal appeal which was not successful More
This is an application for stay of execution following the attachment of the applicant’s property in fulfillment of a consent order granted by this court on 16 February 2010. More
It is a requirement for the law that all persons facing criminal charges are tried whilst they will be coming from home. However, in some cases a person charged with an offence may have to remain in custody till the day the court pronounces its verdict or its sentence. That is an exception to the general rule. In this case the appellants were arrested and appeared at Bulawayo Magistrates Court facing stock theft charges wherein their prayer for bail was refused by the court. They proceeded to approach this court challenging that decision to refuse them bail. More
On 5 July, 2022 the first respondent, the City of Harare, clamped the applicant’s motor vehicle with registration number AFS 0365. He had parked it in Angwa Street, Harare as he went into the Deeds Office for business. More
The applicant in casu seeks leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against this Court’s Judgement which dismissed his appeal. The application for leave to appeal was opposed. The respondent argued that the applicant’s grounds of appeal do not raise any questions of law. Further, the application was resisted on the basis that the intended grounds of appeal were not concise and that they were long and rumbling. More
