The four appellants appeared before the Magistrate at Marondera charged with the crime of stock theft as defined in s 114 (2) (a) (ii) of the Criminal law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9 :23] (the Criminal Code). More
- Appellant was in Respondent’s employ as a Trust Plant Manager at the Graniteside Branch.
- By a letter dated the 16th of May, 2014 he was suspended pending investigations into gross acts of misconduct.
- By a letter dated the 21st May 2014, Appellant was advised of a disciplinary hearing on the 28th May, 2014 at 4 pm. The charge was:
“any act, conduct or omission inconsistent with the fulfilment of the express or implied conditions of his contract”
In terms of the National Employment Code of Conduct Statutory Instrument 15 of 2006.
- The said letter stated,
“Please... More
This was an action matter. On the date of trial, it was postponed sine die by consent. The defence had raised a special plea of prescription. The plaintiff was not conceding it. In terms of a timetable agreed upon, the parties would file their written submissions. Judgment on prescription would be delivered on the papers. This now is that judgment. More
: The appellant applied for bail pending trial on 14 September, 2018 and he was denied bail.
He appealed to the High Court against the magistrates’ decision. More
The basis of the charge was that the employees under the national employment council grade had convened a meeting without following the company procedures for holding such a meeting. The appellant was alleged to have approached physically and by telephone some employees and called them to attend the meeting. He threatened some of the employees that if they did not attend they will be labeled as sellouts. He is a managerial employee and he attended and even addressed the meeting on his personal issues. The appellant was initially charged not as a manager to which he successfully objected hence the... More
1. This is an appeal against the decision of the designated authority upholding the decision of the disciplinary committee. The appeal raised three grounds on conviction and two on the penalty. However in court it was agreed that there was only one ground on the conviction which is that there was no adequate evidence to convict on the charges raised. On the penalty it was agreed that if the charge was proved the penalty would be appropriate going by precedent of such cases as Innscor v Letron Chimoto SC 6/2012. The parties thus argued on the sufficiency of the evidence... More
This is an appeal against the decision that led to appellant’s dismissal from employment following allegations that he had given false information relating to duplicated bar code 106 which could have resulted in loss of the company’s roll of electric cable. More
This application was filed through an urgent chamber book. The circumstances were that sometime in December 2016 the applicant’s son who is a form four pupil with the first respondent was alleged to have committed some acts of misconduct which were inter alia theft of a text book and $21-00 from a fellow student. More
MUZENDA J: This is a chamber application for leave to appeal out of time. Where applicant seeks the following relief:
“IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1. Application for leave to file appeal out of time be and is hereby granted.
2. Applicant be and is hereby granted leave to file his appeal within 5 days of granting of this order.
3. There shall be no order as to costs.”
The conviction and sentence were pronounced at Rusape Magistrate’s Court on 17 July 2023. Applicant intends to appeal against both conviction and sentence and to him he enjoys bright prospects of success. More
This is an application for condonation of late filing of heads of argument.
The brief history of this matter is that respondent filed its appeal on the 16September 2011. Applicant then filed his notice of response on the
30 September 2011. The respondent then filed its heads of argument on the
7 June 2013. The matter failed to take off on the 11 December 2012 because respondent had not filed heads of argument. On the 11 June 2013 the matter was then postponed sine die to enable applicant’s legal practitioner to file heads of argument. On the 28 June 2013... More
The applicant who was 37 years old appeared at Rusape Regional Court on 24 April 2019 facing two counts of Rape as defined s 65 (1) (a) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act, [Chapter 9:23]. On the first count the state alleged that on a date unknown to the prosecutor but during the period extending from December 2018 to January 2019 and at Chidawanyika Village, Chief Mutasa, Honde Valley, the applicant had sexual intercourse once with Juliet Mwanaka a female aged 7 years who at law is deemed incapable of consenting to sexual activities. The second count also... More
The applicant seeks interim custody of the two minor children on the basis that the respondent, who was by consent awarded custody on 16 June 2005, has denied him access to the children. In addition he averred that the respondent has relocated to South Africa and has left the children in the care of her mother in Bulawayo. The respondent did not only oppose the application but filed a counter application seeking authority to remove the children from the jurisdiction of this Court. The applicant also opposed her counter application. More
This is an application for the review of the respondent’s disciplinary committee decision. Applicant raises 3 issues for review. The first one is that he was wrongly charged under the Tourism Industry Code instead of under the Procurement Act. Secondly he says that the Chairman did not have jurisdiction to hear his matter as he was biased on account of the fact that he was husband to applicant’s superior. Thirdly he argues that the complainant in the matter was his immediate supervisor and signatory to the procurement process now under challenge so he gave a biased account of the events... More
This is an application for the review of the respondent’s disciplinary committee decision. Applicant raises 3 issues for review. The first one is that he was wrongly charged under the Tourism Industry Code instead of under the Procurement Act. Secondly he says that the Chairman did not have jurisdiction to hear his matter as he was biased on account of the fact that he was husband to applicant’s superior. Thirdly he argues that the complainant in the matter was his immediate supervisor and signatory to the procurement process now under challenge so he gave a biased account of the events... More
