This is an appeal against an arbitral award granted in respondent’s favour on 22 September 2015. Appellant was employed by respondent as a General Manager on fixed terms stretching from December 2007 to November 2014. The last contract was not renewed. Appellant claims that he had a legitimate expectation that the last contract would be renewed upon expiry. He approached the Ministry of Labour but the issue was not resolved. It was subsequently referred to arbitration. The arbitrator ruled that each specific contract terminated upon its expiry and appellant was entitled only to any outstanding terminal benefits calculated on the... More
The applicants were arraigned for trial before the first respondent, a Regional Magistrate sitting at Harare Magistrate’s court. The first respondent will in this judgment be referred to as the “magistrate”. The second respondent is the Attorney General of Zimbabwe. He is the prosecuting authority whose officer is prosecuting in the applicants’ trial. More
1. This is an appeal against conviction only, the appeal against sentence having been abandoned at the hearing.
2. The appellant was convicted of criminal abuse of duty as a public officer as defined in s 174(1)(a) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23] (the Criminal Law Code).
3. He was sentenced to 14 months imprisonment of which 6 months imprisonment was suspended for 5 years on the usual conditions of good behavior. The remaining 8 months imprisonment was suspended on condition the appellant performs community service. More
The appellant was convicted, after contest, of two counts ofcontravening s 65 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23]. He was sentenced to 15 years for each count. More
On the turn, I dismissed the above bail application and indicated that my reasons would follow. I now set them out.
The applicants are facing one count of contravening section 20 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9.23]. They were arrested on the charge in May 2007. It is alleged against the applicants that during the period extending from 2006 to 2007, the first applicant who is a former member of the Zimbabwe National Army, connived and conspired with the other six applicants and other persons to overthrow the Government of Zimbabwe through unconstitutional means. More
Applicant in this matter seeks an order of stay of proceedings against him in the General Courts Martial of the Zimbabwe Defence Forces in the following terms:
“INTERIM RELIEF GRANTED:-
Pending determination of this matter the applicant is granted the following relief;
“1. The respondents be and are hereby barred from proceeding with the Court Martial of the applicant on 7 December 2007 or any date thereafter until this matter is finalised on the return date hereon.”
The relief sought in the final order was basically the same as the above save that the applicants sought to attach procedural conditions... More
The applicants are facing a charge of contravening s 20 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Cap 9:23] – treason. They have been in custody since May, 2007. Ever since their incarceration they have mounted several unsuccessful applications for bail on changed circumstances. The present is one such application, the last one having been on 8 March, 2010 before MAKARAU JP (as she then was). More
The applicants are seeking the dismissal of the charge for which they were committed for trial on 4 June 2008 on the basis that they were not brought to trial within six months of such committal. More
This is an appeal against the decision of the magistrate’s court wherein it ordered the committal of the appellants for trial before the High Court despite their case having been previously dismissed in terms of s 160 (2) of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act [Cap 9:07]. More
Applicant was dismissed from work after a disciplinary hearing held on 27 June 2013. He appeal internally and the appeal was dismissed on 23 July 2013. In terms of Rule 15 (1) of the Labour Court Rules, 2006, Applicant was required to appeal within twenty one (21) days from the date when he received the decision dismissing the internal appeal. Applicant only noted an appeal on 22 October 2013 after the stipulated time. On the same date the Applicant filed the current application for condonation of late noting of appeal. More
This is an application for re-allocation of a quantification matter to a different arbitrator made in terms of Rule 14 of the Labour Court Rules, Statutory Instrument 59 of 2006. More
The applicant is facing allegations of murder as defined in section 47(1) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act (Chapter 9:23). Applicant appeared at Gwanda Magistrates’ Court for an initial remand on 4th of May 2022. He was remanded in custody to the 18th May 2022. Applicant desires to be released on bail pending his trial. This application for bail is opposed by the state on the grounds that he is a flight risk. The state contends that applicant is not a suitable candidate for bail as committed a similar offence whilst on bail on another murder charge. More
This chamber application was filed on the 12th day after the conviction and sentence of the applicant on a charge of murder in terms of Order 34 r 263 of the High Court Rules 1971. More
This is an application from the bar for upliftment of a bar for failure to file heads of argument in an application for condonation for late noting of an appeal. In other words after failing to meet the time limitations in a court process the applicant applied to be forgiven while processing that application the applicant has failed again to meet the time limitations in the application to be forgiven and now needs to be forgiven again before the original application can be considered or else the applicant cannot be heard. More
The applicants and 1st respondent entered into a sale agreement on 8 April 2015 wherein the 1st respondent sold the property in question. The applicants in turn sold the property to one Sinikiwe Charambeni. In November 2019 the 1st respondent issued summons seeking the cancellation of the sale agreement between him and the applicants on allegations that the applicants had breached the agreement. The 1st respondent subsequently obtained a default order under HC 2611/19 which order cancelled the Agreement of Sale. The applicants became aware of this development after Charambeni advised them of her eviction from the property. The applicants... More
