The following are the grounds of appeal and I quote:
1. ‘The Tribunal a quo erred and misdirected itself on a point of law in failing to appreciate that the essential elements of the offence of embezzlement had not been proven. More
OPPOSED APPLICATION
CHIRAWU-MUGOMBA J: The applicant seeks an interdict in terms of s8(1) of the Trade Marks Act ( Chapter 26:04), the ‘Act’. However, the correct section is 9A but this is neither here nor there. The applicant’s case as pleaded is very simple. She contends that since the 31st of May 2024, she is the registered proprietor in the Republic of Zimbabwe, Botswana, Mozambique and Malawi of the trademark FESO under AP/M/2023/005745 in classes 1, 3 and 35 in respect of hair products. She attaches a copy of the certificate of registration which shows that the mark is registered... More
KABASA J: On 5th March 2020 the plaintiff issued summons against the defendant claiming the following: -
“1. An order compelling the defendant to transfer the property being Stand Number 177 Harrisvale Bulawayo to the Estate of the Late Patrick Hove.
2. The defendant to pay the costs of suit.”
The background to the claim is largely common cause. It is this: -
On 25th June 2013 the late Patrick Hove, “Hove” entered into an Agreement of Sale with the defendant for the purchase of stand number 177 John Makunga Township of Lot 1 of Hundred Acre Lot John Makunga... More
The plaintiff in this matter, Letwin Kadiyo, lays monetary claims against the defendant for US$32 500.00 and US$20 000.00 based on a tacit universal partnership that she says she had with Kudakwashe Naison, the defendant. The plaintiff met the defendant in 2013 at a time when each used to sell his or her own wares at a market called Gulf Market in Harare’s central business district. She sold shoes and he sold cell phones. They fell in love. They started cohabiting in 2014 with his parents. He continued with his business and she did the same with hers. Each at... More
On the 13th July 2020 this court handed down an order dismissing the appeal filed in this matter. The appeal was against an arbitral award handed down on 26th of August, 2014in which Hon H.T. Pasipanodya found that the Appellant’s claim for unlawful dismissal was not justified and therefore the dismissal penalty had been properly imposed. The appeal was opposed. I apologise sincerely to the parties for the delay in writing the judgement. I fell ill in 2017 and delayed in the delivery of many judgements this one included. The following constitute my reasons for the judgement in the matter. More
The matter was placed before me as one for quantification of damages pursuant to an order by the Labour Court granted on 20 January, 2006 the operative part of which reads as follows;
In the result the appeal is dismissed the decision appealed against is hereby confirmed. Save to add that should reinstatement no longer be an option, CABS is ordered to pay Rugwete her back pay and benefits with interest plus damages for loss of employment. Should the parties fail to agree on the damages payable, either party can approach this court for quantification More
This is an application for confirmation of a ruling made by the applicant in a matter between the respondent and its former employee, one Tendai Fortune Chiremba (hereinafter referred to as the claimant.) More
The 2nd Respondent was employed by the 1st Respondent on a fixed term contract for 5 years as a public safety director.
When the parties entered into this fixed term contract, the 2nd Respondent worked for only 27.5 months and the employer terminated the contract. The agreement was that the 2nd Respondent was engaged for a fixed period of 5 years. More
On the 28th May 2019 applicant issued a ruling to the effect that:-
(i) the retrenchment procedure was properly adhered to;
(ii) there was variation of provisions of the contract of employment;
(iii) the respondent be ordered to pay a total amount of $63 621 within 30 days of receipt of the ruling;
(iv) the respondent remit an amount of $7 653.56 to the Pension Authority within 90 days of receipt of the ruling.
It is this ruling which is subject of this application for confirmation pursuant to Section 93(5a) and (5b) of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01] as amended.... More
On the 1st April 2019 at Harare Applicant, in her capacity as a Labour Officer, issued a ruling. She ordered the 1st Respondent (employer) to pay the 2nd Respondent (employee) an amount of $3 382-50 in respect of gratuity upon termination of employment. Apparently the employer failed to comply with the ruling. Thereupon Applicant applied to this Court for the confirmation of her ruling in terms of section 93 (5a) of the Labour Act Chapter 28:01 (hereafter called the Act). The employee supported the application. The employer opposed the application. More
This is a chamber application for an order for direct access to the Constitutional Court (“the Court”) made in terms of r 21(2) of the Constitutional Court Rules SI 61/2016 (“the Rules”). More
The application is opposed by the second respondent. The first respondent is the presiding magistrate whose decision is the subject matter of the review application pending before this court under case no. HC 2653/18. The first respondent is not really a player in this application because she made her decision, the subject of review and became functus officio. To put the matter beyond doubt, the applicant appeared before the first applicant at Harare Magistrates court on 17 February, 2018 charged with the offence of Criminal Abuse of Duty as a Public Officer as defined in section 174 (1) (a) of... More
The brief history of this matter is that the Appellant joined the Respondent in August 1994 as a general hand. He was charged with two (2) counts of fraud that is contravening Clause 11:5 (f) of SI 171 of 2010 Collective Bargaining Agreement. More
This is an application for the condonation of late noting of an appeal and extension of time within which to note the appeal. The respondent employer is opposed to the grant of condonation relief citing the fact that such is not well founded. More
This is an urgent chamber application for a spoliation order which was initially lodged against the first to third respondents before the fourth respondent was joined to the proceedings in terms of Rule 32(12) (b) of the High Court Rules, 2021.
The third respondent abandoned the points in limine raised in its papers of opposition. I will therefore go into the merits of the matter. The applicant’s case is that he bought two pieces of land from Hayes Zimbabwe Private Limited and Rawson Properties on 18 June 2020, being stands 18017 and 18018 Tynwald Township of lot 12 Tynwald. After... More
