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
The appellant was employed by the respondent as its Operations Director. He was also, for a period, appointed as the organisation’s Acting Managing Director. He was dismissed from the respondent’s employ following disciplinary proceedings for acts of misconduct which happened during the period that he was Acting Managing Director. He was charged with three counts for violating section 4 (a) of the Labour (National Employment Code of Conduct), Regulations Statutory Instrument 15 of 2006 (S.I. 15/06), that is
“any act of conduct or omission inconsistent with the fulfilment of the express or implied conditions of his or her contract;” More
This is a court application for summary judgment in terms of Rule 30(1)(2) of the High Court Rule 2021.
BACKGROUND FACTS
Applicant was employed by the respondent. The latter terminated the contract of employment. Applicant was aggrieved and he filed a claim against respondent with the National Employment Council for the Medical Industry. The matter was determined by a DESIGNATED AGENT of the NEC for the Medical Industry who ordered that respondent pays a total sum of US$10366.62 or equivalent being back pay and damages in lieu of reinstatement. The respondent failed to pay the amount so ordered resulting in... More
This is an application for review. Before the matter proceeded on merits four points in limine were raised. On the basis of the points in limine this court dismissed the application. More
The brief background of this matter is that the applicant was employed by the respondent as a finance manager and director for 18 years. He was dismissed from employment in February 2023, he then appealed against the dismissal before one Arbitrator W.T. Pasipanodya who ruled in his favour and ordered his reinstatement without loss of salary and benefits. The respondent then appealed to the Labour Court but the appeal was dismissed, there were subsequent applications for appeal and leave to appeal by respondent however they were dismissed. The applicant then obtained a judgment in his favour under judgment No LCH... More
The applicant was employed as a Finance Manager and Director for 18 years. He was charged with Misconduct and was dismissed from employment in February 2013. He appealed against the dismissal and Honourable arbitrator W T Pasipanodya ruled in his favour. The applicant then appeared before Honourable TC Sengwe for quantification of damages. More
This is an appeal against the judgment of the Magistrates Court sitting at Murambinda.
The respondent in this appeal was the applicant while the appellants were the respondents in the court a quo.
The respondent filed an application for an interdict against the appellants More
This is an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. The judgment sought to be appealed against was handed down on the 30th of October,2015.
After listening to arguments and upon consideration of the papers in the record I am
satisfied that the application for leave to appeal ought to be dismissed.
My reasons are basically as follows:
Firstly, the Applicant has failed to comply with the accepted practice that in an
application for leave to appeal an Applicant must attach the proposed Notice of Appeal
setting out the grounds on which he/she proposes to appeal. There are... More
