DUBE-BANDA J: This is an application for bail pending trial. Applicant is being charged with the crime of robbery as defined in section 126 of the Criminal Law [Codification and Reform] Act [Chapter 9:23].It being alleged that on the 26 March 2021, applicant in the company of other accomplices used violence, or threats of immediate violence upon one Zenzo Proud Nkomo to relinquish control over 200 kgs of pregnant gold carbons and one 303 rifle, the property of Lone Mine. More
DUBE-BANDA J: This is a divorce matter. The parties were married to each other on the 23rd April 1996, which marriage still subsists.Five children were born of the marriage. All the children are now adults. The plaintiff instituted divorce proceedings, issuing summons in this court for a decree of divorce and ancillary relief. The divorce action is founded on the basis that the marriage relationship between the parties has irretrievably broken down and has reached such a state of disintegration that no reasonable prospect exists for the restoration of a normal marriage relationship between the parties. More
The 1st appellant is an Agronomist in the Hurungwe District of Mashonaland West. The 2nd appellant is farmer in Karoi. They were jointly charged with fraud in contravention of s136 of the Criminal Law [codification and Reform] Act (Chapter 9:23). The offence relates to fraud in respect of agricultural inputs supplied by the Government. More
1st to 16th applicants are all employees of the 1st respondent and they all subscribe to the 17th applicant, a trade union duly registered in terms of the Labour Act (Chapter 28:01) (The Act). In this application they seek the following relief:
“1. The application for a declaration of rights be and is hereby granted.
2. The Collective Bargaining Agreement National Employment Council for the Cement & Lime & Allied Industry, 2004, be and is hereby declared to be lawful and binding on the 1st and 2nd respondents.
3. The variation of the contracts of employment of 1st to 16th... More
The applicants were charged and convicted of robbery as defined in section 126 (2) of the Criminal Law Codification and Reform Act (Chapter 9:23) by a Regional Magistrate sitting at Gwanda on 28th October 2021. Applicants were each sentenced to 10 years imprisonment of which 2 years were suspended for 5 years on the usual conditions of future good conduct. Dissatisfied with both conviction and sentence applicants filed an appeal with this court. The applicants now make an application for bail pending appeal. The application is opposed by the state. More
This is an application for bail pending appeal made in terms of section 123(1)(b)(ii) of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act [Chapter 9:07] The Principles underlying an application of this nature are trite viz; the likelihood of abscondment, the prospects of success on the actual appeal and the delay before the appeal is heard. These are weighed against the interests of the administration of justice and the individual’s right to freedom. In the matter of S vs Kilpin 1978 RLR 282 (A) it was held that the principles governing the granting of bail after conviction were different from those governing... More
The applicant holds a Master’s Degree in Finance. He was last employed as the Group Financial Officer of a mining company. He was also a board member of the company. At the time of the hearing of this application, he was no longer so employed. In fact, he was out of employment. He lost his employment with the mining company in circumstances that led in part to this application More
On the 9thJanuary 2020 Respondent’s Chief Executive Officer reversed their Disciplinary Committee’s determination. In place therefore he ruled that Appellant be demoted from the position of Quality Assurance Officer to the position of Handling Supervisor. Appellant then appealed to this court against the decision of the CEO. Respondent cross appealed the CEO’s decision. In due course the matter was set down for hearing.
At the onset of oral argument Appellant raised a point in limine . He argued that there was no proper Response to his appeal. Rule 19 (2) of this Court’s Rules
incorporated as S.I. 150/17 requires that... More
This is an application for condonation of the late noting of a review application by the applicant employee. The respondent employer is opposed to the grant of condonation relief citing the fact that, the applicant has not satisfied the condonation tests. More
This is an application for condonation for late filing an application for review. It is opposed. PRELIMINARY ISSUES
At the commencement of the hearing , preliminary issues were raised on behalf of the 1st respondent . These are that the draft application for review does not comply with rules of this Court ,Statutory Instrument 150/2017( the Rules); that the relief sought is incompetent and further that the review application is premature More
This is a judgment on preliminary issues which were raised on behalf of the 1st respondent where the main matter was an application for review. The following were the preliminary issues. That the application was defective in that it did not comply with the provisions of R20 of the Rules of this Court and Form LC5; that the grounds for review were not concise and precise; issue estoppel/res judicata in that the applicant was raising an appealable matter in an application for review where such matter had been competently dealt with in terms of a code of conduct. The respondent... More
In this contested application, applicant vies for the confirmation of a provisional order whilst the respondents pray for its discharge. Apparently, applicant sought an interim order by way of an urgent chamber application for the suspension of the respondents’ mining activities and operations on Plot G, Greydine Farm, Tiger Reef, Kwekwe. Applicant is the holder of occupation and agricultural rights on the property on one hand. More
This is an application for condonation for late noting of an appeal and an application for rescission. In his draft order the applicant has prayed for condonation only. I will therefore deal with an application for condonation. More
The plaintiff is the owner of Adelina farm in the Featherstone area where he is in the business of raring Brahman cattle since 1999. His claim against the defendant is for the payment of US$9 086 being the balance of the purchase price of 26 steers sold and delivered to the defendant. That claim was eventually reduced to US$8 738 on account of the non delivery of one beast that bolted and escaped during the loading process. More
1. This is an application for bail pending appeal against both conviction and sentence.
2. It was triggered by the judgement of this court convicting them, together with one Terrence Mukupe, of the alternative charge of contravening s 174(1)(e) of the Customs and Excise Act [Chapter 23:02] (“the Customs and Excise Act”) and the sentence imposed on each of them. More
