1. This is an application for bail pending trial. Applicants with other persons who are not part of this application are being charged with two counts, in count 1 they are charged with the crime of contravening section 82(1) of the Parks and Wildlife Regulations S.I. 326/1990 as read with 123 (1) (B) of the Parks and Wildlife Act [Chapter 20:14] (acquire, possess, sell or transfer raw unmarked ivory without a permit). It being alleged that on the 27 April 2022, at around 1800 hoursaccused 1, 2, 3 and 4 who are not part of this application where spotted along... More
The story of Lizzie Chokela (the plaintiff) is follows:
The first defendant which is a duly incorporated company contracted Nick TsigisaiMaheve a mechanic and operating as Nick Motors to repair and service its motor vehicles as and when the need arose. Nick was a mechanic but not an electrician. When an opportunity to do some electrical related work on one of the first defendant’s motor vehicles arose Nick then subcontracted the plaintiff to go and work on the motor vehicle in question in the Ngezi area.
In order for the plaintiff to get to Ngezi she had to be driven... More
This is an appeal against the whole judgment of the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal handed down on 15 April 2021 as judgment number HH 167-21, under case number LPDT 09/18. The Disciplinary Tribunal (the Tribunal) found the appellant guilty of conduct that was unprofessional, dishonourable and unworthy of a legal practitioner and ordered the deletion of his name from the register of Legal Practitioners, Notaries Public and Conveyancers. More
This is an application for reinstatement of a matter which was struck off the roll on 27 May 2015. The precise terms of the order made were
“The appeal be and is hereby struck off the roll it being invalid for failure to comply with section 98 (10) of the Labour Act.”
I reserved my ruling on the matter after deciding that I would proceed to determine the matter on the papers filed of record. Both parties filed heads of argument which clearly outline the submissions intended to be relied on and the authorities to be cited. I declined the... More
On 1 March 2007, the plaintiff issued summons out of this court for an order as follows:
a)an order declaring the agreement annexure A to the particulars of the claim dated 18 December 2006, to have been validly cancelled and incapable of performance.
b) an order for the return to the plaintiff of motor vehicle Mitsubishi Chariot Reg number AAN 8616, or alternatively
c) Payment of the sum of R17 000-00 being the balance of the purchase price due to the plaintiff
d) Costs of suit
The facts which give rise to the dispute are these. The plaintiff and the... More
At the onset of oral argument in this Court applicant raised a point in limine which respondents opposed.
“2. No authority to depose to affidavit on behalf of 2nd Respondent.
2.1 The deponent to Respondents; opposing affidavit has no legal authority to depose to same on behalf of 2nd respondent which in terms of section 3 of the Health Service Act (Chapter 15:16), is a corporate body. It is trite that authority to act for a corporate body is required before a natural person’s deposition is accepted.
3. Michael Sande says he is the Acting Secretary for the 2nd respondent... More
Applicant applied to this Court for condonation of a belated application to appeal this Court’s judgment LC/H/349/24 to the Supreme Court. Respondent opposed the application but was barred for failure to file its heads of argument. More
This is an urgent application for stay of execution of a decision made against the applicant by the respondent wherein the respondent demoted the applicant . The application is opposed. This is not the first time that the applicant has approached this Court with a similar application. In January 2024 the applicant appeared before this Court ( Honourable Musariri J). Judgment in that matter, LC/H/2/24 ,was issued on 15th January 2024.The Court in the earlier application dismissed it on the basis that the applicant failed to show that he would suffer irreparable damage should the demotion not be stayed pending... More
As parents tussle over custody of children they seem to be oblivious that the best interests of the children reign supreme over the parents’ preferences. This court as the upper guardian of children will ensure that the duty placed upon it by the Constitution of Zimbabwe, and indeed the dictates of regional conventions such as the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child and international instruments such as the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, being to safeguard the best interests of the children shall be undertaken without hesitation. Children are not chattels to... More
Whatthe applicant LloydMadyegasva hereinseeks, isan order to the effectthat apropertydescribedasStand 196 HillsideSouth,Township 14 of Matsheumhlope, in Bulawayo,which hepurchasedfrom oneDeclan Patrick Joseph Kelly, thethirdrespondent,wasdone with thefullknowledge of KingdomBank thefirstrespondent,as it was then known. More
This is an appeal against the decision of the Disciplinary Appeals Committee that upheld the decision of the Disciplinary Committee to dismiss the Appellant from employment after committing a number of misconducts. More
This is an application for condonation of late noting of an appeal. The applicant was found guilty of breaching section 18.3 (12) of the respondent’s Code of Conduct. He was alleged to have fraudulently requested for $5-00 parking fees instead of $2-00 established by management. He was dismissed and subsequently followed the wrong route on appeal. The applicant was a self-actor at the time. The National Employment Council for the Motor Industry subsequently advised the applicant that the appeal lies with the Labour Court. More
This is an appeal at the instance of the appellant employee against the decision of the respondent’s appeals body. The facts giving rise to the matter are that the appellant was accused of breaching respondent code of conduct by receiving $5 parking fees for parking a bus at the designated car park yet he went on to pay an amount less than the $5 which he received. He was brought before a disciplinary committee which reached a deadlock in respect of his guilt but was subsequently found guilty because of the chairperson’s casting vote. He was consequently dismissed from employment.... More
