The appellant is appealing against the whole judgment of the High Court (the court a quo) delivered on 14 March 2018 under judgment number HH – 141/18 as read with HH - 421 - 20. The order appealed against is couched in the following terms:
“Accordingly I order as follows:
1. Judgment be and is hereby entered for the plaintiff in the sum of US$200 000.00 together with interest thereon at the prescribed rate being 5% with effect from 15 December 2015 to date of payment.
2. Defendant is ordered to pay costs of suit.” More
On 5 October 2021, the applicant filed an application for condonation of the late noting of an appeal under case number SC 362/21. The application was served on the second and third respondents on that date and on the fourth respondent on 7 October 2021. It is common cause that the certificates of service were only filed on 12 October 2021.
Despite the filing of the proof of service on 12 October 2021, by a letter date-stamped 21 October 2021, the Registrar notified the applicant that in terms of r 39 (2) of the Rules, the application under SC 362/21... More
This is an appeal against the judgment of the Court Martial handed down on 19 April 2018, finding the appellant guilty of three counts of fraud in contravention of para 39 (2)(a) of the First Schedule to the Defence Act, [Chapter 11.02] as read with s 136 (a) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9.23]. The court a quo found that between 11 December 2013 and 11 February 2014, the appellant caused deductions of US$2-00 from each of a number of members of the Zimbabwe Defence Forces and deposited the money into accounts from which he made... More
This is an urgent application for stay of execution of a writ of execution issued pursuant to the judgment granted in Case No. HC 8103/14. The writ was issued to enable the second respondent to recover the taxed costs awarded in HC 8103/14. The applicant has instituted a court application under case No. HC 4856/17 for review of the taxation of the costs. The relief in casu is being sought pending the determination of that application for review. The application is opposed by the second respondent. More
On 17 February 2016 the first respondent was granted judgment against the applicant for, inter alia, payment of a sum of US$3 872 123.00 together with interest thereon at the prescribed rate calculated from 28 February 2013 to the date of payment in full, and costs of suit on the legal practitioner and client scale. The first respondent subsequently had his bill of costs taxed. The taxing officer allowed a sum of US$205 602.00. Pursuant to the taxation of the bill of costs the first respondent caused a writ of execution to be issued on 23 May 2017. On 31... More
This is an appeal of a judgment of the Magistrate sitting at Zaka. The order granted by the Magistrate reads as follows:-
“It is ordered as follows:-
1. Respondent be and is hereby ordered to keep and observe peace towards applicant.
2. Respondent and all other persons acting through him or on his instructions are interdicted from remaining on Govo land for the purpose of threatening or interfering with the normal business and farming operations of applicant, his people, his heirs executors, administrators, successions or assigns
3. Respondent and all other persons acting through him and on his instructions be... More
This is an appeal against the respondent’s appeals committee (“AC”) decision. The AC confirmed the appellant’s conviction of a charge of deliberate refusal to carry out a lawful instruction given by a person in authority. This was a violation of section 3.5.1 of the respondent’s Code of Conduct. More
The facts giving rise to the case are that the employees after leaving the respondent’s employment approached an arbitrator arguing that they were owed money by respondent. They say that the money was what they should have been paid because they were doing the duties of a shopkeeper and therefore entitled to the salary for that grade.
The arbitrator ruled that they had only managed to demonstrate that they were working as general hands. To that end they are not owed what they claimed except for a few days leave which the employer agreed to pay them. An order was... More
This is an application for condonation for late noting of an appeal. The applicant was convicted of eight counts of armed robbery and ten counts of attempted robbery. He was found to have been on a car-jacking spree between 14 and 30 April 2003 in Bulawayo in the company of some foreigners. He was sentenced on 20 January 2006 as follows:
“Counts 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 10 – five years imprisonment (each count).
Counts 4 and 9 as one for sentence - five years imprisonment
Total 45 years imprisonment. Of the total of 45 years imprisonment... More
The applicant is employed by the respondent as a revenue officer. The dispute between the parties relates to the alleged non-payment of the applicant’s salary by the respondent. The basic facts of the dispute are common cause. The respondent as part of its staff development has a policy wherein employees are permitted to improve themselves academically or otherwise. To that end they may take study leave on conditions which are laid out in a document called “ZMIRA Staff Training and Development Policy”. The policy document provides for study leave of a maximum thirteen days in a calendar year. This type... More
Applicant filed an application for a declarator in which he is seeking that the forensic audit report conducted by the 4th and 5th respondents on the affairs of 1st and 2nd respondents be declared unlawful and that 3rd, 4th and 5th respondents bear costs of the application on the higher scale.
At the commencement of this hearing, respondents’ counsel raised 5 preliminary points, which are that:
1. Applicant is making out a new case in the answering affidavit
2. There are material disputes of facts
3. 5th respondent does not exist in the manner it was cited
4. 3rd, 4th... More
The applicant seeks an order to the following effect:-
1. Applicants be and are hereby declared as majority shareholders of 2nd respondent jointly and severally owning 57,45% of the shares.
2. The share certificate purporting that 4th respondent is the 100% shareholder of 2nd respondent be and is hereby declared null and void. More
After hearing and assessing the evidence led in this case, on 27th of March 2013 I pronounced the following order;-
“ Consequently I order as follows:-
1. The defendant and all those claiming occupation or ownership through him of subdivision 1 of Roslin farm in Seke District of Mashonaland East Province measuring approximately 390.58 hectares in extent be and are hereby evicted from the said farm on or before 30 May 2013. More
