The applicant was married to the late Duggan. They later divorced. During the subsistence of their marriage they acquired certain five pieces of property known as stands 1 to 5 of Wilmar Park, Banket “the properties” registered in their joint names. The properties are at the centre of this dispute. More
This is an appeal against an arbitral award per Honourable Chitsa, which award was made in favour of Respondent through a dismissal of Appellant’s claim of constructive dismissal for lack of merit. The Arbitrator instead found that the Appellant having personally resigned was entitled to be paid her terminal benefits. It is necessary to set out the brief background. More
Appellant is a maternal grandparent with de facto custody of a minor child born on 22 December 2008, having assumed full responsibility for parenting the child whose mother died in a traffic accident in April 2016. The respondent is the father of the child who sought access to his child from the de facto custodian grandparent. He was granted that access on alternate weekends, from Friday to Sunday, and, for the first two weeks of each school holiday and on alternate public holidays. He was also later allowed to execute that right to access pending appeal. Appellant appealed against the... More
This matter was set down for hearing a number of times and the hearing could not proceed as expected. Firstly, when we sat to hear the matter on 27 October 2022, the second respondent’s counsel Mr T Mapfuwa took issue with the fact that there were two similar applications before the court, that is, HC 2058/22 and HC 5530/22 both involving same parties, same issues and same relief. The two records were indeed before us. The counsel for This matter was set down for hearing a number of times and the hearing could not proceed as expected. Firstly, when we... More
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
