This matter was set down as an appeal against the guilty verdict and dismissal penalty which was meted out on appellant employee. On the hearing date the parties requested that the matter be determined based on the papers filed in IECMS. This judgment is therefore based on the papers filed in IECMS. More
This matter was set down as 2 applications in one that is, a chamber application for the dismissal of the employee’s appeal in terms of Rule 19 (3) (a) for want of filing Heads of Argument on time and an application for condonation of the late filing of Heads of Argument by the employee. More
In or about 2000, the applicant and 32 others whose names she lists in an annexure to her affidavit occupied a farm in Nyabira. The exact name and description of the farm they occupy is in dispute as I shall show later. They have been in occupation ever since. Also in occupation of the land was one Chris Murove, against whom this court granted an order of ejectment at the instance of Landscapes Estates (Pvt) Ltd and Inveragus (Pvt) Ltd in case no HC 4281/03. More
This is an unopposed application for leave to appeal to the Constitutional Court, made in terms of r 32 of the Constitutional Court Rules, 2016 (the Rules), against the decision of the Supreme Court (the court a quo) in Judgment No. SCB 03-24. The court a quo allowed, with costs, the first respondent’s appeal against the decision of the High Court in HB 102-23. It further set aside that judgment and substituted it with an order upholding the first respondent’s preliminary point on jurisdiction and declining jurisdiction to hear the matter. More
: This is an application for an interdict against the 1st respondent. The basis for this application is that the 1st applicant is the registered holder of mining claims, known as the ROYAL FAMILY GROUP MINING CLAIMS. The 1st respondent allegedly conducts mining activities independently on the 1st applicant’s mining claims. He holds no certificate of registration in respect of those claims but the 1st applicant does. He is not a director, shareholder, or employee of the applicants. The 1st respondent is the only one who has opposed this application. More
Appellant alleges that the Arbitrator awarded damages without hearing evidence on the reasonable time it would have taken Respondent with reasonable diligence, to obtain alternative employment. Also that, the Arbitrator awarded damages when he had found that Respondent had not mitigated her loss. Further, that the Arbitrator had awarded 12 months damages which is a total of three distinct components. More
The appellant was the applicant in the court a quo. In his founding affidavit, he stated that he lent US$10 000-00 to the first respondent on 4 September, 2014, payable on or before 4 October, 2014 in terms of a written agreement concluded on 4 September 2014. More
At the initial hearing of this matter and as a result of Mr Muziwi for the State raising argument in support of the point in limine after the defence counsel had addressed the court on the merit it was agreed that the court peruses the record in B2178/20 in order to appreciate the dispute which resulted in applicant’s appeal being stuck off the roll to enable the Court to determine whether appellant had returned to Court on the same defective papers. More
On the 27th August 2018 at Harare, Designated Agent (DA) M Manyika made a determination. He dismissed appellant’s (employee) claim of unfair termination of employment by respondent (employer). The employee then appealed the determination to this Court in terms of Section 92D of the Labour Act Chapter 28:01. More
Stare decisis is part of the jurisdiction of this court and indeed of many jurisdictions the world over. Its meaning and import are not only clear. They are also straight forward. Stare decisis, in simple terms, stresses the obvious. The obvious is that an inferior court is bound by the decision(s) of the superior court. The inferior court cannot, by parity of reasoning, ignore or wish away the decision(s) of the superior court unless it can show, in its attempt to wish away such, that the circumstances of the case which the parties placed before it are distinguishable from those... More
In 2013 Zimbabwe celebrated the birth of a new Constitution. It is an epoch in the life of Zimbabweans. The new Constitution also brings with it certain obligations on institutions and other office bearers. It is such obligations that the applicant brings this application against the respondents seeking an order in the following terms:
“IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1. The first respondent’s failure to enact an Act of Parliament stipulated in section 198 (a) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe was a breach of section 324 of the Constitution.
2. The first respondent be and is hereby ordered to enact a... More
The second defendant has filed a special plea to the plaintiffs’ claims.
The plaintiffs’ claims are based on the following synopsis. The first defendant is the Local Authorities Pension Fund, a registered Pension Fund. The second defendant is the plaintiffs’ former employer. The plaintiffs brought an action for payment of $1 570 783.20 being total benefits due and payable to them by the first defendant in terms of pension contracts entered into in respect of their retirement from service of the second defendant. More
MATHONSI JA: This is an application for condonation of the late noting of an appeal and the extension of time within which to appeal against a judgement of the High Court handed down on 1 October 2020. The applicant’s initial appeal filed timeously was struck off the roll on 1 April 2021 for the reason that the notice of appeal was fatally defective. More
This is an application for quantification of damages. I should point out that the matter suffered several stillbirths when parties requested postponements to enable them reach an out-of-court settlement. Alas, this was not to be as the parties failed to agree on certain key issues. More
On 18 September 2013 first respondent brought an against second respondent seeking second respondent’s eviction from a piece of land situated at Sereko Village, Ward 25, Tombo 2, Nyanga. The basis for such eviction was that she was the owner of that land having inherited it from her late father-in-law in 2007. Second respondent had at one time been leasing the same piece of land from first respondent’s father in law.
Second respondent defended the action arguing that first respondent had no locus standi to sue her for she did not own the land. Second respondent claimed that she was... More
