The applicant and second respondent lived together as man and wife for about 10 years. Certain unhappy differences arose as a result of which they could no longer continue staying together. On 4 June 2001, second respondent issued summons against applicant claiming, inter alia, an order that House No. 5465 Budiriro Township be declared her sole and exclusive property. More
The Applicant is a Designated Agent with the National Employment Council under the Construction Industry (NEC Construction) duly appointed under the provisions of Section 63 of the Labour Act. The Respondent is a company, duly registered under the laws of Zimbabwe.
Various claimants, who are not joined to this application, approached the National Employment Council for the Construction Industry alleging under payment of wages, non-payment of overtime, notice-pay and scrap allowances. They were also seeking payment of the minimum retrenchment package. The Respondent opposed the matter on the basis that the claimants were not its employees. After hearing the matter... More
This is an application for the confirmation of a ruling by the applicant in terms of section 93 (5a) (a) and (b) of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01] as amended. More
On 26 January 2017, this Court in SC 1/17, adjudicating over the parties’ dispute,remitted the matter to the Labour Court (the court a quo)for a determination ofthe following issues:
“To determine, on the basis of specific provisions of the Works Council Agreement concluded in September 2010 and the minutes accompanying the Agreement, and having regard to sworn evidence from the signatories to the agreement, whether or not the salaries and benefits stipulated in that agreement were intended to apply to the appellants.” More
This is an appeal against the whole judgment of the Labour Court (the ‘court a quo’) dated 6 May 2022, judgment number LC/H/108/22 in which it dismissed the appellants’ application seeking an order that the Works Council Meeting and Resolution of 15 September 2010 related to the appellants who were on fixed term contracts. More
This is an appeal against the decision of the Magistrates Court which granted the respondent’s claim for appellant’s eviction from Stand 4733 Ushewokunze, Harare. Despite the appellant’s opposition to the eviction claim on the basis that this stand was allocated to his wife Pelagia Nyemba, the court a quo made a finding that the respondent who was the plaintiff in the matter was the rightful owner of the stand in question. It ordered the eviction of the appellant and all those claiming occupation through him. More
This is an opposed application for rei vindicatio aimed at recovering the Applicants’ assets namely an undivided 16.66% share identified as Share Number 1 in a piece of land located in the District of Salisbury, known as the Remainder of Stand 926 Salisbury Township, covering 500 square metres and held under Deed of Transfer 1148/89 in the Respondents’ possession. More
The plaintiff issued civil summons in May 2004 sounded in Zimbabwe dollars. The plaintiff was claiming from the defendant;
1. $248 292,38 for past medical expenses
2. $1 292 460,00 for future medical expenses
3. $6 000 000,00 for psychological injury, loss of general health and loss of amenities of life.
4. $5 000 000,00 for contumelia, humiliation and defamation
5. $115 136 000,00 for loss of pension benefits
6. $411 300 774,00 for loss of earnings
7. Interest on all the above at the prescribed rate from the date of service of summons to date of full payment.
8.... More
I decided to write this judgment despite that this is an unopposed matter. The reason for this rather unusual course of action will become more apparent later in this judgment. Suffice to say that this was mainly because of the procedural frailities inherent in this review application and the order being sought in the matter set on the unopposed motion roll. I also invited Mr Mbwachena to address me on legal problems apparent in this matter and unfortunately he appeared unprepared and unhelpful. More
The remedy sought by the applicant, on an urgent basis, was rather unusual. For a final order, he wanted the court to declare, in the main, as being unlawful and a breach of his constitutional rights, the respondents’ conduct in barring him from retiring from the police force after having reached the pensionable service. Ancillary to that, was a request to set aside the respondent’s letter communicating that decision. More
This is an application for the rescission of a judgment granted in favour of the applicant, Joseph Mavhiza, which ordered him to set down his 2005 matter within 30 days. The applicant contends that he was unaware of the judgment until three months after it was issued, by which time the 30-day period had already lapsed. A further three months passed before the applicant was able to gather the necessary financial resources to engage legal representation and file the present application for rescission. The applicant is now six months out of time, seeking the court’s indulgence to rescind the judgment... More
The matter was placed before me as an appeal against the determination by the Public Service Commission confirming the decision by the Respondent to discharge the Appellant from employment with effect from after duty on 9 November 2009. More
MABHIKWA J: On 17 July 2020, the applicant sought confirmation of a Provisional Order granted by this Honourable Court on 24 July 2019. Only the 1st and 3rd respondents opposed the confirmation of the said Provisional Order. This court confirmed the Provisional order into a final order and below are the court’s reasons for the confirmation.
In his application, the applicant had contended that sometime in 2009, he purchased some mining claims from the now late Cosmas Matare. The mining claims are located on Loith Hill Farm in Zhombe. They are known as Maligreen 34 Mine. He proceeded to register... More
This is an urgent chamber application. The applicant is seeking the following interim relief;
“1. The second, fourth and fifth respondent are hereby interdicted from transferring the immovable property known as Number 1110 South View Uplands, Waterfalls, Harare to the 3rd respondent.
2. The first respondent shall not enforce the orders granted by this Honourable Court in Case No. HC 6626/05 and by the Magistrate in Case No. 11317/05.
3. This provisional order shall remain in operation notwithstanding the noting of the appeal against it.” More
