The applicant who was 37 years old appeared at Rusape Regional Court on 24 April 2019 facing two counts of Rape as defined s 65 (1) (a) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act, [Chapter 9:23]. On the first count the state alleged that on a date unknown to the prosecutor but during the period extending from December 2018 to January 2019 and at Chidawanyika Village, Chief Mutasa, Honde Valley, the applicant had sexual intercourse once with Juliet Mwanaka a female aged 7 years who at law is deemed incapable of consenting to sexual activities. The second count also... More
The applicant seeks interim custody of the two minor children on the basis that the respondent, who was by consent awarded custody on 16 June 2005, has denied him access to the children. In addition he averred that the respondent has relocated to South Africa and has left the children in the care of her mother in Bulawayo. The respondent did not only oppose the application but filed a counter application seeking authority to remove the children from the jurisdiction of this Court. The applicant also opposed her counter application. More
This is an application for the review of the respondent’s disciplinary committee decision. Applicant raises 3 issues for review. The first one is that he was wrongly charged under the Tourism Industry Code instead of under the Procurement Act. Secondly he says that the Chairman did not have jurisdiction to hear his matter as he was biased on account of the fact that he was husband to applicant’s superior. Thirdly he argues that the complainant in the matter was his immediate supervisor and signatory to the procurement process now under challenge so he gave a biased account of the events... More
This is an application for the review of the respondent’s disciplinary committee decision. Applicant raises 3 issues for review. The first one is that he was wrongly charged under the Tourism Industry Code instead of under the Procurement Act. Secondly he says that the Chairman did not have jurisdiction to hear his matter as he was biased on account of the fact that he was husband to applicant’s superior. Thirdly he argues that the complainant in the matter was his immediate supervisor and signatory to the procurement process now under challenge so he gave a biased account of the events... More
The applicant and the third respondent had competing claims over the same mining block, called New Year 89.Both of them had valid registration certificates over it. These had been duly issued by the first respondent, the mining commissioner. The first respondent hadresolved the dispute in favour of the third respondent. The applicant had appealed to the second respondent, the Minister of Mines and Mineral Development. The appeal had been dismissed. The applicant then applied to this court for review. But his application wasout of time. So he applied for condonation. More
The applicant and 1st respondent have had a long standing mining dispute concerning mining claims, Midway 21 and Clifton 15. The dispute was referred to the Provincial Mining Director of Masvingo who gave a determination in favour of the applicant.
The area in which the mining claim is situated falls under Mberengwa. Following the Masvingo Provincial Mining Director’s determination, the 1st respondent took the matter to the Gweru Provincial Mining Director who also gave a determination in favour of the applicant. Dissatisfied with the determination, the 1st respondent appealed to the Minister of Mines and Mining Development and was successful.... More
This is an application in terms of Order 49 rule 449 of the High Court rules, 1971 to correct a judgment of this court handed down on the 1st June 2017. The basis of the application is that the judgment of this court under cover of No. HB131/17 was made on the basis of a mistake that was common to all the parties; that the correction sought herein will not change the substance of the judgment but only the citation of the third respondent so that it properly reads Minister of Mines and Mining Development N.O. and that no party... More
This is an urgent application. This application was filed in this court on the 19th January 2022. It was then placed before me and I directed that it be served on the respondents together with a notice of set down for the 27 January 2022. More
This is an appeal against the arbitral award by Honourable J Mateko that was handed down on 4 September 2015. The appellants were employed by the respondent for a period of (9) nine years as security guards. They were then retired after reaching the age of 65 years. They then approached the arbitrator with the claim that they had been unfairly dismissed. The arbitrator dismissed their claim stating that termination was done fairly on retirement. More
1. On 22 September 2016 the Regional Court sitting at Mutare convicted the appellant, a 35 year old Congolese refugee, of raping an 8 month old baby girl at Tongogara Refugee Camp in Chipinge. More
This is an urgent chamber application to interdict the respondents from carrying out executive functions of the first applicant including preparations for the August 2022Kadoma agricultural show.
The first applicant is a legal persona with capacity to sue and be sued.
The second to the ninth applicants purport to be the lawful appointed authority to administer the affairs of the first applicant.
The respondents are individuals with capacity to be sued. They too claim to be the lawful committee to run the first applicant’s affairs. At the heart of this dispute, is the control of the first applicant. More
This is an application for rescission of judgment. In considering applications of this nature, the court is to consider generally whether or not there has been a reasonable explanation for the default and also whether the applicant has good prospects of success on the merits. More
Applicant made an application to this honourable court in terms of article 34 (2) (b) (ii) of the Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration – 1985 as amended and as incorporated in terms of the Arbitration Act [Chapter 7:15].
The application was opposed by the 4threspondent. The 1stto 3rdrespondents, perhaps because of the very nature of their offices decided not to file any papers and abide by any decision of the court. More
This is an appeal against an arbitral award wherein the arbitrator found that the respondent had committed minor acts of misconduct and thereafter set aside the penalty of dismissal and ordered the appellant to reinstate the respondent. This aggrieved the appellant. More
