Having received information that the appellant was moving around in possession of a firearm the police went to the appellant’s house to conduct a search. They recovered a 12 bore shot gun and 4 rounds of ammunition from his bedroom. It is common cause that the firearm in question had been fired once. More
This is an application for registration of an arbitral award made by arbitrator N.M. Tichiwangana on 6 February 2012 which award remains extant. The application is opposed by the respondent and the thrust of such opposition is contained in para 4 of the opposing affidavit of Peter Matemba which reads; More
Appellant appealed against his dismissal from employment by Respondent. The crux of his case is set out in his Heads of Argument as follows,
“12. The Respondent failed to establish all these essential elements of theft during the hearing much made (sic) and arbitrary decision to dismiss the Appellant. The Labour Act states that an employee can only be dismissed if it is proved in terms of the law that he was engaged in an act of misconduct stipulated in the Employment Code of Conduct (Section 12B of the Act). More
This is an application for condonation for late filing of an application for recession of default judgment and an application for rescission of default judgment. More
Appellant appealed to this Court against his dismissal from employment by Respondent. The facts of the case are aptly set out in Respondent’s Heads Of Argument as follows,
“On 01 May 2011 however LameckPhiri gave the keys to the safe containing money he had collected on 30 April 2011, to the Appellant who did banking for that day. The Appellant collected a total of
US$98 439 and R193 800. He put the money and banking documents in the same safe that contained Phiri’s money. No hand over take over was ever done between the two notwithstanding that huge sums of... More
This is an application challenging the constitutional validity of s 28 (2) of Reconstruction of State Indebted Insolvent Companies Act [Chapter 24:27], (“the Reconstruction Act”). The said provision expressly removes employees or former employees of a company falling under the Reconstruction Act (of which the third respondent is one) from the protection afforded by the Labour Act [chapter 28:01]. More
This was an urgent chamber application in which the applicant sought an interim order that:
a) The first to third respondents restore the applicant into possession a piece of land referred to as “site Chorlotte at Godevary Farm”.
b) That first to third respondents, their associates, assigns or appointees be interdicted from tiling the soil and or interrupting the supply of water or access to roads leading to the land stated in paragraph (a) herein and
c) That the first to the third respondents be ordered to return all farming implements removed from the pacing shed, storeroom and house used... More
On the 24th of June 2019 the respondents appeared in court represented by legal practitioners. At the end of the hearing the application was struck off in accordance with the admissions made by the parties through their laywers. Unfortunately the order was not typed until a follow up was made a year later on the 7th July 2020. On the 15th July the typed order was availed. More
The plaintiff and the defendant were married in terms of the Marriage Act, Chapter, 5:11 on 15 December, 1990, at Mutare Magistrates Court. Their marriage certificate was produced as Exh 1. When summons for divorce were issued in July, 2015, the parties had been married for 25 years.
They had five children; two adults; one minor child who died in 2017 and two other minor children, namely, Jonathan Chiweda, born 30 September, 2000 and is therefore turning 16 years and Grace Chiweda, born 29 April, 2005, and is therefore 13 years old. More
. This is an application for a declaratur and consequential relief arising out of a sale of property belonging to the applicant.
The applicant is a female adult who can sue in her capacity. The first respondent is a Trust registered in terms of the laws ofZimbabwe. The second respondent is a male adult. The third and fourth respondents are cited in their official capacity. More
: The applicant instituted summons action against the respondent seeking judgment in the sum of US$51 013-00 together with interest at the rate of 5% per annum from 31 July 2011 to date of payment and costs of suit, due by the respondent in terms of an acknowledgment of debt signed on 28 July 2011. More
This is an application brought in terms of s 167(2)(d) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe, as read with rr 21(1)(d) and 27(1) of the Constitutional Court Rules, 2016, for a declaration that the President of the Republic of Zimbabwe, the first respondent herein, failed to fulfil the constitutional obligation imposed upon him by s 259(3) as read with s 180 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe when he appointed the fifth respondent as the Prosecutor-General of Zimbabwe. All the respondents have opposed the application for various reasons which will be articulated in the course of this judgment. More
The accused appeared before the provincial magistrate at Harare Magistrate court on 8 April, 2021 on trial on four counts of theft as defined in s 113(3)(a)(b) of the Criminal Law (Codification & Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23] committed at four different residential properties in Hatfield suburb, Harare between the period of October and December 2020. In count one, the accused had been given a place to stay by the complainant at the latter’s house. The accused abused the complainants’ kindness and stole the complainants’ Samsung phone and three pairs of shoes from the complainants’ house. The property was not recovered. More
Applicants applied to this Court for quantification of damages for loss of employment. 1st Respondent opposed the appeal.
The matter arises from the order issued by this Court on 24th October 2022. The order nullified the dismissal from of employment of applicants (employees) by the 1st respondent (employer) and remitted the matter to the employer for a rehearing within thirty (30) days. If the employer did not comply, it was ordered to reinstate the employees or pay them damages either agreed by the parties or assessed by this Court. More
