The first applicant woke up from his slumber on 17 October 2017 when he was personally served with summons for Civil Imprisonment in case number HC9035/17. He and the second applicant then mounted this application for rescission of a default judgment that had been granted against them in HC 9883/15 on 11 March 2016. This application is being made in terms of r 63 of the High Court Rules 1971. More
This is an application for bail. The applicant has 2 matters in which he is facing charges of murder. The applicant appears under 2 different names. In the trial which is before PHIRI J his name is given as John Mabhunu, which is the name under which the instant application has been made. More
The application placed before me is for rescission of a default judgment entered against the Applicants by my sister MUZOFA J on the 27th of November, 2013. The application is opposed. More
This is an application for the confirmation of a draft ruling by the applicant. Brief background
The brief background is that the 2nd respondent was engaged by the 1st respondent in terms of various fixed term contracts as a finance director for its project in Zimbabwe. More
This is an application by a Labour officer. It is for the confirmation of the officer’s draft ruling. It is in terms of section 93 (5a) (a) and (b) of the Labour Act, Chapter 28:01 (hereafter the Act). The application is opposed by the first respondent and supported by the second respondent in favour of whom the draft ruling is. More
2. The second and third respondents were employed by the first respondent on a permanent basis i.e contract without limit of time. They were employed as section managers at one time. They were moved to the head office into the office of buying clerks. The post of buying clerk is a higher post than that of section manager. It is a post with new responsibilities. There was an increase of ZWL90-00 in salary. There was no paperwork to effect the movement to the new post. There were no other benefits that were paid. The two respondents claimed that in actual... More
The plaintiff issued summons against the defendants for an order declaring that the defendants ran the business of Royal Bank Zimbabwe Limited recklessly, with gross negligence and that they are therefore personally liable, without limitation of liability, for all of the debts or liabilities of Royal Bank Zimbabwe. More
On 15January 2013 the appellant was driving a Nissan Elgrand which is not registered along Zimplats road with one passenger on board. He was stopped by Police Officers who were carrying outanenforcement along the said road. The Officers discovered that the appellant was not a holder of a driver’s licence. He was arrested and was convicted by a KadomaMagistrate on his own plea of guilty to contravening s 6 of the Road Traffic Act [Cap 13.11]. He was sentenced to 6 months imprisonment of which 3 months imprisonment was suspended for 5 years on the usual condition of good behaviour.... More
This is an application for bail pending review. It arises out of proceedings conducted in the Regional Magistrates’ Court, sitting at Harare, in terms of s 271(2)(b) of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act [Chapter 9:07]. On 6 September 2023, the applicant was convicted, on his own plea, of the crime of theft as defined in s 113(1) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:023]. The property stolen was a motor vehicle. He was sentenced to 3 years imprisonment of which 1 year imprisonment was suspended for 5 years on condition of good behaviour. More
The applicant was employed by the respondent as a battery charger based in Norton. The applicant was suspended from employment sometime in January 1998 on allegations of misconduct. The applicant has lodged this particular application because he alleges in his founding affidavit that this honorable court declined to rescind judgment number LC/H/130/23. The applicant also alleges that the same judgment was obtained through fraud. The applicant has brought forward this present application for leave to appeal in a bid to appeal against the honorable court’s decision to dismiss his application for rescission for default judgment. More
On 10 July 2006, the respondent herein, whom I shall refer to as the plaintiff issued summons in the Magistrates Court Harare against the appellant, the defendant claiming “sharing of property.” Particularsof claim attached to the summons made reference to a customary union which resulted in the establishment of a universal partnership. It was accordingly prayed that it would be just and equitable for the court to order that a house shared by the parties during the partnership be sold and the proceeds jointly shared between the parties. More
In May 2011 plaintiff issued summons against defendant claiming US $52 000-00 damages for pain and suffering, loss of amenities of life, permanent disability and future medical expenses which damages he suffered as a result of a motor vehicle accident which he alleges was caused by defendant’s negligence.
Defendant entered appearance to defend and filed his plea and a counterclaim. In the counterclaim defendant is claiming damages from plaintiff for the repairs he effected to his motor vehicle, the damages having arisen as a result of plaintiff’s negligence.
The matter proceeded to pretrial conference stage and finally a date of... More
This is an application for quantification of damages. In this case the applicant successfully applied for a review of the disciplinary proceedings which were carried out by the respondent employer, which proceedings saw his dismissal. More
The Plaintiffs who are husband and wife issued summons on 25 March 2014 against the first defendant claiming for an order that the first defendant and all those claiming occupation through him be evicted from Lot 11 of Danbury Park Estate within 48 hours of service of the order upon him. That the first defendant pays costs of suit. By order of this Honourable Court in HC 3127/18 dated 19 November 2018 the second defendant was joined as the 2nd Defendant and the summons were amended accordingly. More
Appellant was convicted on his own plea of guilty to contravening s 131 (1) (a) as read with s 131 (2) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23]. He was sentenced to 9 years imprisonment of which 6 months were suspended on condition of restitution. A further 12 months were suspended for 3 years on condition of good behaviour. More
