Welcome to Midlands State University Library

Court Judgements



Browse all Court Judgements
The Applicant and the 1st Respondent are engaged in a mining dispute. The default judgment order was served on the Applicant on the 13 of June 2023. She contends that, that is the first day and time she first knew of the matter under HC157/23. As soon as she became aware of the Default Judgment order she mounted an application for the rescission of that judgment under case number HC 1299/23 in this court. More

The applicant, a holder of mining rights in Zhombe, defaulted in submitting the statutory inspection fees resulting in the forfeiture of her mining claims by the first and second respondents. The claim against the third respondent was withdrawn during the course of the parties’ reciprocal pleadings. More

This is an application in terms of Order 13, r 87 (2) (b) of the High Court Rules, 1971 (then applicable) where the applicants seek to be joined (as fourth and fifth respondents) to proceedings under HC 3727/20. The applicants aver that they have a direct and substantial interest in the issues involved in HC 3727/20. At this juncture, it is relevant to state that Zuva Petroleum Two (Pvt) Ltd brought an application for joinder to the same proceedings under HC 4323/20, which I granted in a judgment delivered as HH 55-23. More

This is an urgent chamber application for leave to execute pending appeal. The background facts are these:- The applicants obtained judgment (HB 280/21) in their favour in case number HB 1917-21. The respondents were found to have despoiled the applicants when they took occupation of 145 hectares at Esidakeni Farm on the basis of an offer letter but without following due process with regards to the eviction of the applicants who were in peaceful and undisturbed occupation of the property. The effect of the judgment was to order the respondents’ eviction from the farm on the basis that they ought... More

: The history of the matter is as follows:-On 15 January 2018, the applicant filed an urgent application for registration of a caveat against a certain property namely subdivision 6 of Lot 1 A Greendale otherwise known as 3 Rhodesville Avenue, Greendale Harare. More

The appellant was arraigned before the Magistrates’ Court sitting at Harare on the following charges. Firstly, 66 counts of theft as defined in s 113(2)(c) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act, [Cap 9:23] alternatively theft as defined in s 113(2)(d) of the same Act. Secondly, 73 counts of fraud. He was convicted after a lengthy trial of 66 counts of theft and of 70 counts of fraud. He was found not guilty and acquitted on the alternative charge of theft. He was sentenced as follows. All the theft counts were taken as one for purposes of sentence and... More

On 11 August 2023 applicants filed their answering affidavit and heads of argument. It is noted that on 3 August 2023 first respondent filed the first notice of opposition, the opposing affidavit of which does not have a date endorsed on by the commissioner of oaths. Contrary to what was agreed and ordered on 4 August 2023, by 17 August 2023 first respondent had not filed anything. It was only after follow ups were made that a supplementary notice of opposition was availed. Strangely the notice of opposition (supplementary) availed is dated 2 August 2023 and the opposing affidavit whose... More

1. This is an application for condonation and reinstatement of appeal. The application is brought in terms of r 70 (2) of the Supreme Court Rules 2018. If successful, the applicant intends to appeal against the whole judgment of the High Court under case number HCH 4750/11. The judgment was handed down on 12 February 2024 under judgment number HH 64/24. More

On the 28th of November 2022 the applicant was invited for a disciplinary hearing .He was alleged to have violated Part VI Group 4 of the National Employment Council for the Commercial Sector Employment Code of Conduct and Grievance Procedures (NECCS)( the code). He appeared for the hearing on 7th December 2022 before Designated Officer, one Ndingindi (Ndingindi). On 21st December 2022 Ndingindi made findings and convicted the applicant and penalized the applicant with dismissal. On the 23rd of December 2022 Ndingindi wrote the applicant withdrawing his letter of the 21st of December .On that same date the 23rd of... More

This is an appeal against an arbitral award wherein Appellant is arguing that the Arbitrator erred when he made a decision that Appellant was fairly dismissed which decision was not backed by any reason or explanation. More

This is an application for dismissal for want of prosecution of case number HC 8645/18. The following is the order sought. 1. The application for dismissal of the action in HC 8645/18 for want of prosecution be and is hereby granted. 2. The action in HC 8645/18 is and hereby dismissed for want of prosecution. 3. The Respondent shall pay the Applicant’s wasted costs in HC 8645/18 and costs of this application on attorney-client scale. The application is opposed. More

The appellant was employed by the respondent as a receptionist when, on the 6th November 2012 she was suspended, on allegations of negligence in the course of her duties for a missing blank receipt number 23143. This was done in terms of the NECCS employment Code of Conduct. Following a disciplinary hearing, appellant was found guilty and dismissed. More

KHALID MOHAMMED GOMAA SIAM(1st Applicant) was born in Palestine, migrated to Zimbabwe and was eventually registered as a citizen of Zimbabwe on 13th February 2009. DUNIA FAWZI FAYEZ SIAM (2nd Applicant) is a citizen of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and a permanent resident of Zimbabwe. The first and second Applicants are husband and wife and also the biological parents of QUDS KHALID MOHAMMED GOMAA (3rd Applicant born 26th June 2001), AAYA SIAM (a minor born 29th March 2004) and WALEED SIAM (a minor born 10th January 2007). The children are holders of Zimbabwean Passports and Birth Certificates.Sometime in 2021... More

The applicant in this matter seeks interim relief couched in the following manner: “Pending the confirmation or discharge of the order, applicant is granted the following interim relief: 1. The execution of this court’s judgment under HC 2776/19 be and is hereby stayed. 2. The 3rd respondent shall not take any steps to execute in terms of the court order dated 14 May 2020. 3. In the event 3rd respondent would have executed by the time of the order, the 3rd respondent shall restore possession to the applicant. The facts of this matter are that the 1st respondents obtained a... More

The application under HC 8522/19 was made in terms of r 449 (1) (a) of the old High Court Rules based on two (2) grounds, namely: (a) The order was erroneously granted in the absence of the applicant, who is an interested party and whose rights were affected by the order concerned. (b) The said order was granted in error since the party who obtained the relief was not the one who held the claims that were forfeited by the second and third respondents. The applicant argued that the claims were registered in the names of the fourth and fifth... More