This is an appeal against the decision of the Respondent to dismiss the Appellant on allegations of contravening the Respondent Code of conduct SI 165 or 1995 Part B Section 4 (a) (iv) Misappropriation; applying or attempting to apply to a wrong use for unauthorized purpose any funds, assets or property belonging to the company ;
and
4 (a) (i) bribery or corruption; giving or receiving or attempting to give or receive any bribe of inducing, or attempting to induce any person to perform any corrupt act;
and
4 (a) (ii) false evidence, deliberately giving untrue, erroneous or misleading information... More
This is an application to compel respondents to supply applicant with further and better particulars. The factual background is that the applicant was served with summons in the main matter under HC 3415/15. Before the dies induciae had expired, applicant filed a request for further particulars, which particulars were duly supplied. Subsequently, the applicant did not file a plea or some answer to the claim as required by the rules. Instead, it filed yet another request for further and better particulars. The respondents refused to supply those particulars arguing that they were purely evidential in nature. More
The applicants approached this court seeking a review in terms of ss 26-7 of the High Court Act as read with the common law, alternatively in accordance with s 4 of the Administrative Justice Act and in Accordance with Order 33, r 256 of the High Court Rules 1971. The applicants further seek that the acquisition by the first respondent be declared invalid and be set-aside. More
Background
Applicant acted as village head in 2006. He was made substantive in 2009. In 2011 applicant was suspended pending alleged misconduct. On 13 June 2012 applicant was reinstated to his position as village head without loss of benefits. After that 2012 reinstatement no documents pertaining to his misconduct as village head was served on him. On 9 September 2021 applicant received a letter from the District Development Coordinator addressed to Chief Marange advising the chief about the removal of applicant as village head and his replacement with second respondent Edward Marange. The letter does not state the reasons for... More
The appellant in this matter has filed an appeal against the award that was delivered by Honourable Arbitrator J Zhakata. In addition the respondent has filed a cross appeal against part of the Arbitration award. More
The first respondent is a company in which the applicant and the second, third and fourth respondents are presented as the shareholders. The second respondent holds 70 percent shareholding while each of the other three holds 10 percent of the shares. The shareholding structure is contained in an agreement signed by the parties. In 2007 the first respondent was allocated tracts of land by the Government through the relevant Ministry. The land was meant for the development of residential properties, industrial use, commercial use, and for the construction of a hotel. The land was registered in the name of the... More
This application is one where the respondent should suffer for its own sins as well as for the sins of its own legal practitioners. Its attitude to its case speaks volumes of its confused state of mind. The dilatory manner in which its legal practitioners handled its side of the application shows nothing but a do not care disposition to their duty towards the court and their client. The legal practitioners decided to, and did actually, sleep whilst they were on duty. Their conduct was, at best, one of indifference and, at the worst, a clearly unquestionable dereliction of duty. More
This is an opposed application for confirmation of a provisional order issued by my sister Judge, Justice GUVAVA on 25 March 2011 calling upon the respondents to show cause why a final order should not be made upon the following terms: More
This is a simple case for summons for provisional sentence anchored on an alleged acknowledgment of debt executed, on 14 February 2017, by one Dr K Karonga, as General Manager of the respondent in this case. It will be necessary in this case to reproduce the document that has given rise to the dispute between the parties. I do so hereunder: More
This is an application for review of the disciplinary proceedings against applicant. Applicant was employed as a line worker. He was charged with an act of misconduct for taking and converting or attempting to take and convert to his own private use property that belonged to the company. Applicant was accused of taking a prepayment meter from the Senior Customer Services Officer’s Office without his knowledge and installing it at stand 1021, 3rd Avenue, Park Town, Harare. Applicant appeared before a disciplinary committee was found guilty and was dismissed from employment. More
This an application for review of the disciplinary proceedings before the Respondent in which the applicant was found guilty of misconduct and he was dismissed from employment. More
On 29 November 2013 the Honourable W Mufambeni made an arbitration award. In terms thereof he ordered Applicant to pay Respondents various amounts adding up to $81 740.00 in respect of arrear wages. On 6 January 2014 Applicant appealed to this Court against the award. Respondent opposed the appeal. Then Applicant filed the present application for stay of execution. More
The applicant applies for condonation of late noting of an application for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence in case No. CRB 212/16 now available under judgment HH 515/17. The applicant was convicted by TSANGA J of with assessors of murder as defined in s 47 (b) of the Criminal Law Codification & Reform Act, [Chapter 9:23] following a contested trial which was completed on 2 August 2017. He was sentenced to 20 years imprisonment. The applicant was required if minded to note an appeal, to apply orally for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court immediately after the... More
On 7th July 2015 Arbitrator R.E. Nhiwatiwa issued an arbitration award at Harare. He ordered Appellant to pay Respondent an amount of $3 129.27 as notice pay and terminal benefits arising from the parties’ employment contract which had been terminated. Appellant then appealed to this Court against the award. Respondent opposed the appeal. More
