On 4th June 2024 at Harare, Arbitrator N Shumba issued an award which ordered respondents to pay appellants their “back pays in arrears” by way of installments over one (1) year Appellants then appealed the award to this Court in term of section 98 (10) of the Labour Act Chapter 28:01 hereafter called the Act. Respondent opposed the appeal. More
On 30 June 2005 the third respondent registered, under Deed of Transfer Number 5859 2005, an undeveloped stand, being a certain piece of land situate in the District of Salisbury known as stand number 518 GoodHope Township of Lot 6 of GoodHope (the property), in the name of the applicant. More
On the 1st of August 2022 plaintiff issued summons against the defendants in which he was claiming:
a) Cancellation of a deed of transfer made in favour of first and second defendants in respect of an immovable property known as a certain piece of land situate in the district of Charter, called the remainder of Swindon, measuring 746, 7170 hectares (The Property) held under deed of transfer 8373/2002.
b) Costs of suit on an attorney client scale against 1st defendant More
The plaintiff instituted action for divorce and ancillary relief. The parties married under customary law in 1991. The marriage was later solemnized under the Marriages Act in 1997. There are parties two minor children one of whom is now a major. More
The appeal was referred to me for determination on the record in terms of Section 89 (2)(a)(i) of the Labour Act [Cap 28 : 01]. The appeal was filed in 2014 but has been lying idle due to a failure on Appellant’s part to settle sheriff’s costs for services of Notice of Set-Down. Through a directive issued on 3rd October, 2016 the Senior Judge directed the referral of all such matters for determination on the record. I proceed to determine the matter. More
The appellant, a private in the Zimbabwe National Army was convicted, on his own plea of guilty, of culpable homicide as defined in section 49 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act, [Cap 9:23]. He was sentenced to 4 years imprisonment of which 2 years imprisonment was suspended for 5 years on the usual conditions of good behaviour. He appeals against that sentence. More
This is an appeal against the whole judgment of the High Court (the court a quo) sitting at Harare, handed down on 24 November 2021, dismissing the appellant’s application to set aside the arbitral award delivered by the third respondent on 8 October 2018 in favour of the second respondent, on the grounds that the said award offends the public policy of Zimbabwe. More
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
