The parties having agreed that their marriage has irretrievably broken down to the extent that it can longer be restored to a normal marriagesigned a consent paper on 3 July 2017 wherein they agreed on the apportionment of the parties’ movable assets and the issue of the welfare of their major child Shingai Tariro Masenda who is still at university doing his mastersdegree. The parties could not agree on what immovable property constitutes their matrimonial estate and how it should be shared. Resultantly, 2 issues were referred to trial:
(a) What immovable property forms part of the matrimonial estate?
(b)... More
The appellants lodged the present appeal against sentence imposed by the court a quo. The appellants were both convicted of two counts of assault as defined in s 189 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23] and secondly convicted of indicating a witch or wizard as defined in s 99 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act[Chapter 9:23]. For assault the accused were each sentenced to 12 months imprisonment of which 3 months were suspended on usual conditions of good behaviour. More
The applicant, a company under liquidation which is represented herein by the liquidator, instituted the instant application seeking the eviction of the respondent and all persons claiming occupation through the respondent from Goodwill Extension of Woodlands of Railway Farm 20 and Remainder of Goodwill of Railway Farm 20. The two pieces of land are owned by the applicants. The respondent is the Executor in the Estate of the late Francis Siamsipa. The application is opposed by the respondent. More
This is an application for review. The applicant is challenging the manner in which the 1st and 2nd respondents conducted the hearing in the dispute between itself and the 3rd respondent to the 92nd respondents who were the applicant’s former employees.
The 1st three grounds for review are challenging the procedure which led to the determination by the 1st respondent. The 4th ground for review is however purporting to challenge a substantive finding made by the respondent in awarding damages. The 4th ground challenges how the 1st applicant had decided to award damages in United States dollars when he ought... More
On 29 March 2017 we dismissed the appeals in respect of both matters being CA 7/16 (Ref CRB MBE 286/16) and CA 9/16 (Ref CRB MBE 287/16). We gave the reasons for dismissing the appeals ex tempore. Our view is that it is prudent that we provide full written reasons for dismissing the appeals. These are they; More
On the 3 July 2013 Applicant noted an appeal against the determination of the Respondent’s Appeals Officer confirming the penalty of discharge imposed by the Disciplinary Authority. More
This appeal was dealt with on the record in terms of section 89 (2)(a)(i) of the Labour Act, [Chapter 28:01] (the Act). It is an appeal against an arbitral award handed down on 4 April 2014, in terms of which the appellant was ordered to reinstate the respondent without loss of salary and benefits, or pay him damages in lieu of reinstatement. More
This is an appeal by the appellant against his dismissal by the respondent. Before the appeal could be argued, the respondent raised three points in limine. These are that:
1. the matter was not properly before Court;
2. the appeal having been noted out of time, there was no application for condonation of such late filing of appeal out of time, and
3. no point of law was raised in the grounds of appeal
The first and most important issue is that the applicant was dismissed in terms of Statutory Instrument 130/2003 (S.I. 130/2003, “the regulations”) which was repealed and... More
In terms of s3 of the Titles Registration and District Lands Act (Chapter 20:20) any person who has acquired a lawful right to ownership of any immovable property by prescription, by contract or any other manner may apply to the High Court to order registration of such title into his/her name. More
The three respondents were employed by the appellant at various times and in various capacities. The first respondent was employed as a security guard in May 2011. The second respondent served as a receptionist/clerk with effect from June 2013 whilst the third respondent was employed as a general worker in January 2013. More
This is an application for review. The applicant seeks to have reviewed, the respondent’s decision to charge him with acts of misconduct.
The applicant was employed by the respondent. He alleges that he was retrenched from employment by the respondent. The respondent now seeks to charge him with acts of misconduct. The respondent challenges the applicant’s decision to charge him with misconduct after it had retrenched him. when the matter came up for hearing, both parties raised preliminary points. More
The appellant who stood as the 2nd accused and his co-accused were arraigned before the magistrate Court sitting at Norton for contravening s 157 (1) (b) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23]-dealing in dangerous drugs or alternatively contravening s 157 (1) of the same Act-unlawful possession of a dangerous drug. More
This is an urgent chamber application in which the applicant seeks the following interim relief:
“1. The respondents be and are hereby temporarily interdicted from interfering with applicant’s rights of ownership, possession and title in respect of stand number 32 Whitestone Road, Matsheumhlope, Bulawayo, held under Deed of Transfer number 771/11.
2. The 1st respondent, his nominees, his agents and assignees, be and are hereby temporarily interdicted from accessing or interfering with applicant’s occupation and possession of stand number 32 Whitestone Road, Matsheumhlope, Bulawayo, held under Deed of transfer number 771/11.
The application is opposed. The averments made by the... More
Plaintiff in this matter claimed that she co-owned stand number 3861 Emganwini Township, Bulawayo with her former husband, Reuben Mpofu. She said the parties then divorced through an order of the court which ordered that the property be sold and the proceeds be shared equally. Allegedly, she thereafter offered to buy out the former husband to no avail. Plaintiff claimed further that she was shocked to learn from 1st defendant that he had bought the house when she had not given her consent. She says the sale was unlawful hence she refused to vacate the house. She also said that... More
