HLATSHWAYO JA: This is an appeal against the whole judgment of the Fiscal Appeal Courthanded down on 1 November 2016 under judgment number HH 661/16 of case number FA 08/14, in terms of which the court handed down judgment in favour of the respondent.
The appellant seeks relief in the following terms:
WHEREFORE Appellant prays that the appeal be allowed with costs and that the order of the court a quo be set aside and substituted with the following:-
"The appeal be and is hereby allowed as prayed" More
This is an appeal against an arbitral award requiring the appellant to reinstate the respondent or in lieu thereof pay him damages.
The respondent was employed by the Appellant in 2001 as a security guard. He rose through the different ranks until he became an Operations and Fore Court Manager a post he held at the time of dismissal. During the course of his employment it was alleged that respondent had committed some acts of misconduct. Subsequently the respondent was served with a letter of suspension dated 26 July 2011. It is important that I set out the contents of... More
Opposed Chamber Application for condonation of late filing of an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court and application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court More
I reserved judgment in this application on 4 December, 2015. Owing to my redeployment to the Criminal Division in January, 2016 where I am still deployed, I could not timeously deliver my judgment because of the volume of work obtaining in the criminal division. I do acknowledge the follow up letters which have been written by the applicants’ legal practitioners following up on the judgment. The delay is regretted. I however note that there has not been any undue prejudice occasioned to the applicant because the rights he seeks to assert and protect are in fact protected by a provisional... More
This is a consolidated judgment for matters HC 1338/21, HC 2366/21 and HC 3281/21. The matters were consolidated by consent of the parties. In this judgment, I refer to the parties as they appear in case HC 1338/21. The applicant seeks the registration of an arbitral award granted in its favor against first to third respondents. In case HC 2366/21, the third respondent seeks the setting aside of the same award whilst in case HC 3281/21, the second respondent also craves for the same relief. More
The first and second plaintiffs are husband and wife. The first defendant is a business man whereas the second defendant is a firm of lawyers duly registered in terms of the laws of this country. More
This is an appeal against an arbitral award issued on 10 November 2014, which dismissed the appellants’ claim that their employment was unlawfully terminated.
The appellants were employed by the respondent in various capacities. After the annual shutdown of December 2013/January 2014, the appellants were advised not to report for duty until work was available. The respondent was facing viability problems, mainly caused by the demolition of houses taking place in Chitungwiza. This adversely affected its construction business. More
This is a court application for the registration of an arbitral award in terms of Chapter viii, article 35 of the first schedule to the Arbitration Act, Chapter 7:15 as modified by SI 208/96. The application is opposed by the respondent. More
This is an opposed court application for summary judgment.
On 3 September 2020 the applicant instituted proceedings against the respondents by way of summons under case number HC 4806/20. The relationship between the applicant and respondents (the parties) in this case is regulated by a lease agreement signed on 25 January 2018. In the summons the applicant alleged certain breaches of the lease by the first respondent and seeks relief, inter alia, for the cancellation of the agreement, eviction and recovery of arrear rentals. The second respondent was joined as the second defendant because of his role as a surety... More
The material background facts are as follows;
The Applicant was employed by the Respondent as a bus washer from 2003. The Labour Court found that he had been unlawfully dismissed and handed down the order as reflected supra. The Respondent, having opted out of reinstatement the Applicant approached this court for quantification of his claims. The original claim was for $34 880.27 to cover backpays and damages in lieu of reinstatement. That claim was however supplemented through papers filed on the 18th of September 2012 to reflect a total claim for $44 062.56. More
The applicants and the first respondent maintained a landlord-tenant relationship. The relationship was based on an agreement of lease which the parties concluded on 4 October, 2006. More
The respondent is an administrative authority tasked with the duty and obligation to collect taxes and other statutory dues under various legislative instruments. In particular, the respondent is mandated to collect income tax in terms of the Income Tax Act [Chapter 23:06] (“Act”). More
