This appeal is mainly centred on the interpretation of the phase “effective date” as used by the Arbitrator. Appellant had raised four (4) grounds of appeal but has since abandoned some grounds leaving these two, that: More
Applicant filed a combined application for condonation and rescission of judgment. Respondents opposed the application. The basis of the application is set out in the Founding Affidavit made by Mr. Bruce Dorward. More
This is an application for review. The applicants are teachers at various schools in Harare. At the beginning of 2016, in January, applicants received letters requiring them to transfer to respective schools within Harare Province. The letters informed the applicants that these transfers were with immediate effect.
Applicants aver that there was no legitimate reason given for the orders to transfer except to state that there was overstaffing at the schools concerned. It was further alleged that these transfers were not planned as provided in section 13 (3) of the Public Service Regulations, Statutory Instrument 1 of 2000. Applicants alleged... More
This is an appeal against an arbitral award.
The appellant had a business contract with International Organization for Migration (IOM) to provide catering and cleaning services. To facilitate execution of such contract, the appellant employed the respondents who carried out the services. They were employed for the period September 2011 to December 2013 as general workers. When the employment relationship was terminated, the respondents lodged a claim for three months’ notice pay each. Their salaries had been $150-00 each. More
1. This is an application for leave to appeal the conviction and sentence out of time and to prosecute such intended appeal in person.
2. On 19 October 2018 the Regional Court sitting at Chinhoyi convicted the then 60 year old applicant of three counts of rape as defined in s 65 of the Criminal Law Code.
3. Having treated the counts as one for sentence, the trial court imposed a penalty of 20 years imprisonment 2 years of which were suspended for 5 years on the usual conditions of good behaviour.
4. The Court found that the applicant had... More
MWAYERA J: The appellants were arraigned before the Magistrate court on a charge of attempted Robbery as defined in s. 189 (1) (a) or (b) as read with section 126 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:25]. It is alleged that on 28 November 2020 around 2350 hours the appellants or one or more of them approached the complainant whilst armed with machetes and catapults. They demanded for gold ore. They dragged the complainant to a mine shaft threatening him to disclose where the gold ore was. The complainant did not give in but screamed for help... More
The plaintiff and the defendant entered into a written agreement of sale with respect to the property on the 6th of June 2021. The purchase price was set at US$2 500 000 (Two million Five Hundred Thousand United States Dollars). The terms and obligations of the parties were set out in the agreement. In breach, the failed to pay the purchase price as required in terms of clause 2 . On the 21st of August 2021, the parties entered into a further agreement varying clause 2. The new date for the payment of the purchase price was extended by a... More
Appellant worked for Respondent as a Truck Driver. He was charged with misconduct. A hearing was held. On 19 December 2013 a disciplinary committee (DC) found him not guilty. The complainant appealed. On
14 January 2014 Respondent’s Managing Director (MD) allowed the appeal. He set aside the determination of the DC and proceeded to dismiss Appellant. The latter then appealed to this Court against his dismissal. The appeal raised both procedural and substantive issues. More
On 7 April 2010 the plaintiff herein issued summons against the defendants, jointly and severally claiming an amount of USD$364 434-00. The defendants duly entered appearance to defend the summons and filed a plea in their defence. The plaintiff has now approached this court for an order for summary judgment in the amount claimed on the basis that the defendants do not have a defence to the claim and that they have merely entered appearance for purposes of delay. More
Applicants own properties concerning which first respondent sought their inclusion in the Estate of Late Solomon Ruzambu Tapfumanei Mujuru (the Estate) on the basis that applicants were the deceased’s alter egos. In response, applicants filed this application seeking joinder in HC 2370/2020 on the grounds that as registered owners of the properties in question, they had an interest to protect regarding those properties. More
At the hearing of this matter Respondent raised a point in limine that Applicant had instituted parallel proceedings in the High Court under case number HC-5110/14. The said proceedings in the High Court were actually set down for 1600 hours on the same day. Respondent argued that Applicant was seeking before the High Court the same relief sought before this Court.
Mr. Mushoriwa denied that there were parallel proceedings in the High Court. He argued that the parties are different as the applicant before the High Court is Kadoma City Council. He also argued that the relief sought is different... More
The respondent filed a complaint of unlawful termination of his contract of employment and this was allegedly done without the applicant following any procedures. The appellant’s version of what transpired is very different. It alleges that the
employee went absent without official leave in June 2020. The appellant
denies ever terminating the respondent’s contract of employment. More
At the onset of oral argument, the respondent withdrew her objection to the appellant’s Supplementary Grounds of Appeal. These concisely set out the appellant’s case as follows: More
At the hearing the respondents were now represented. Previously they had filed their papers in person. A number of things had been done wrong. Among others, the notice of opposition had been signed and filed by the first respondent purportedly for and on behalf of the rest of the respondents. The respondents had also filed a fourth set of affidavits without the leave of the court or judge as required by Order 32 r 235 of the Rules of this court. The one affidavit was titled “3RD RESPONDING (sic) AFFIDAVIT”. The other affidavits by some of the respondents were all... More
