Afterdisposed of this application which was set down through the urgent chamber bookon 12 June, 2018 the applicant’s legal practitioners addressed a letter to the High Court Registrar on 14 June, 2018. The letter reads, in part, as follows:
“The application was dismissed and the reasons were given ex tempore in chambers. We kindly request that we be furnished with the reasons on an urgent basis….. We have instructions to appeal his Lordship’s decision….” More
This is an application to declare null and void an appeal noted to this court by the respondent under Civ App 89/07. In the alternative, the appellant seeks an order that the appeal be declared to have lapsed. More
The applicant has approached this court seeking the following relief:
"1. The agreement concluded between the deceased, the late Joseph
Muchapondwa and the first respondent on 13 February 2009 be hereby
confirmed.
2. Terms of the final order be effected to the point that the execution of the judgment granted in the Magistrate Court Case No 11317/05 be and is hereby set aside because the order was complied with when deceased bought off the first respondent.
3. That there be no order as to costs(unless either party opposes this application in which case the opposing party shall pay the costs... More
This court handed down its ruling in which it dismissed an application for discharge at the close of the state case brought by the applicant together with the 2nd to the 9th respondents herein but who were co-applicants in that application.
On 29 October 2019, the applicant filed an application for the Judge’s recusal in the matter. This court dismissed the application on 14 January 2020. More
The trial in this matter commenced 6 June 2018. After the closure of the state case ion 14 March 2019, the nine (9) accused applied for their discharge in terms of section 198 (3) of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act [Chapter 9:07]. On 13 May 2019, the ruling, which dismissed the application was handed down in their presence. More
At the center of the parties’ dispute is control of Commercial Workers Union of Zimbabwe (“the union”). This is a registered trade union which represents the interests of workers in the commercial and allied sectors in Zimbabwe. More
The appellant was convicted of five counts of robbery as defined in s 126 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23]. He was acquitted on one count which was count 3. Counts 1 and 2 were taken as one for sentence, and 12 years imprisonment was imposed. For counts 4, 5 and 6 the appellant was sentenced to 8 years imprisonment on each count. The total for all the counts was therefore 36 years imprisonment. The learned magistrate suspended 5 years imprisonment on condition of good behaviour, and a further 3 years imprisonment on condition of restitution.... More
In May 2017 the Plaintiff and Defendant entered into a verbal agreement of sale where the Defendant paid the Plaintiff US$3000.00 for the delivery of a motor vehicle. The Defendant having received the US$3000.00 then failed to deliver the agreed motor vehicle. The motor vehicle was supposed to have been delivered within a week of the payment and the Plaintiff failed to perform this contractual obligation and subsequently became unreachable to the Defendant. The Defendant only managed to make contact with the Plaintiff after the Defendant reported the matter to Southerton Police Station. The Plaintiff eventually paid the Defendant ZWL$3000.00... More
This is an opposed application in which the applicant seeks to have a decision of the arbitrator set aside in terms of s 34 of the UNCITRAL Model Law, on the grounds that it offends public policy. More
The parties concluded a license agreement as Licensor and Licensee which was effective from 1 August, 2016. On 23 August, 2016, after the applicant failed to secure funding, the parties concluded an Interim Funding Arrangement. More
This is an appeal against the decision of respondent’s Appeals Committee which found appellant guilty of gross negligence in the performance of his duties and dismissed him from employment.
Appellant was employed by the respondent as a revenue officer and was stationed at Nyamapanda Border Post.On 16 December 2012 the appellant was assigned duties in the motor traffic section at the search bay. He was working with three other officers and his duties included receiving duly processed export documents from the Commercial Office and the carrying out searches/physical examinations of consignments being exported and the vehicles exporting the consignment. More
This is an application for the review of disciplinary proceedings chaired by Dzobo (N.O.) which proceedings resulted in applicant employee being found guilty and dismissed from employment following allegations of acting contrary to the conditions of her employment in contravention of Section 4 (a) of the Model Code SI 15 of 2006. More
On 10October 2014, the applicant filed an application in this court seeking the following relief:
“IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1. That the findings and recommendations of the Board of Inquiry and the discharge notice are hereby null and void
2. The applicant be and is hereby reinstated without loss of salary and benefits from the date on which they withheld
3. The costs be borne by the Respondents.” More
The respondent filed a court application for rescission of default judgment in terms of Rule 29 of the High Court Rules 2021. The applicant proceeded to file its notice of opposition on the 30 of June 2022. On 19 July 2022, respondent filed its answering affidavit which was served on the applicant on the 20th of July 2022. One month has since lapsed and the respondent has not applied for the set down of the matter or taken any further procedural step within 1 (one) month from 20th of July 2022. Resultantly, the respondent has failed to prosecute its application... More
The plaintiff and the defendant lived together as husband and wife in an unregistered customary union and bore two children, Prince Munyaradzi Bhamu on 2 February, 1997 and Privilege Tinotenda Bhamu on 3 January, 2002. The parties later separated. The plaintiff issued summons claiming a share of the movable property and immovable property acquired during the union, on the basis of universal partnership. More
