This is an application for the confirmation of a draft ruling by the applicant in terms of Section 93 of the Labour Act [ Chapter 28:01] (the Act). The applicant in casu presided over the quantification of amounts claimed by the employees from their employer, the 1st responded. More
This is an application for Labour Officer Lilford Nhandara that was made on 1st November 2019. In his ruling the Labour Officer ordered the first Respondent to pay the 2nd Respondent (claimant) a total sumof USD883 299-63 arising from damages in lieu of reinstatement and cash in lieu of leave days within 60 days from this order.
The brief history of the matter is that this application is coming to this court after the draft ruling by the Labour Officer was confirmed by this court under judgment LC/H/426/18. In this judgment Honourable Judge Kudya ordered as follows; More
This is a court application for a declaratur and consequential relief filed in terms of s 14 of the High Court Act [Chapter 7:06]. On 27 February 2025, this court issued an ex tempore judgment. The court upheld the point in limine that the first respondent was barred and that its opposing papers were fatally defective. The court struck out the first respondent’s purported notice of opposition and opposing affidavit and proceeded to deal with the application as unopposed. More
In this matter applicant has applied for an order dismissing the first respondent’s claim in case No. HC 1378/15 against applicant in terms of r 75 of the High Court Rules 1971 on the basis that the first respondent’s claim is frivolous and vexatious. The applicant cited the first respondent and Saltana Enterprises Pvt Ltd as joint respondents. The third respondent was joined as a third respondent as a result of third respondent having been joined as a third defendant by first respondent (the plaintiff in HC 13781/15). More
This was an application for rescission of a default judgment which l heard on 18 May 2017 and dismissed with costs. I delivered the judgment ex tempore and I have now been requested for the written reasons. More
Applicants sought the setting aside and nullification of the last will and testament of Pythias Nyamushanya executed at Mutare on 29 November 2006. First applicant sought to be declared the sole beneficiary of the matrimonial property namely Stand 1716 Umtali Township also known as No 7 Bain Drive Morningside, Mutare and an order that the other properties in the last will and testament for the late Pythias Nyamushanya be shared equally amongst all the beneficiaries named in the will including fourth and fifth respondents herein. More
One Jianqiang Jheng issued out summons against the defendant on 3 May 2016 claiming $17 204 being arrear rentals for certain mining equipment leased to the defendant under an agreement dated 8 December 2013 and extending to 8 January 2014. Plaintiff alleged that defendant did not relinquish the mining equipment after the termination of the agreement and is liable for holding over damages at the rate of $700 per month, interest at the prescribed rate, collection commission and legal practitioner and client costs. More
The plaintiff’s claim against the defendants jointly and severally, the one paying the other to be absolved, is for a refund of US$10 000-00 an amount which the plaintiff paid to the defendants as an initial deposit towards a commitment fee in the sum of $35 000-00. More
This is an appeal against a determination by the Respondents’ Chief Executive Officer sitting in his capacity as an Appeals Authority. The determination which was handed down on 3rd of June, 2020, in its operative part, dismissed the appeal noted by the now Appellant against the determination of the disciplinary committee. Secondly, the appeals authority upheld a cross appeal by the now Respondent, thereby setting aside the lesser penalty imposed by the respondents’ Disciplinary Committee and substituting it with a heavier penalty of dismissal from respondent’s employment with immediate effect. The Respondent was also directed to recover from the Appellant... More
The appellant raised two preliminary issues before the matter proceeded into the merits. Firstly that the respondent filed its notice of response out of time and therefore was barred in terms of Rule 19 3(b) of the Labour Court Rules (“the rules”). Secondly that the said notice of response was not properly before the court as it was not made on the proper form LC2 prescribed by the rules. The appellant relied on Rule 19 which deals with failure to file heads of argument instead of Rule 22 that deals with failure to file a notice of response within the... More
At the commencement of these proceedings, the plaintiff abandoned its claim against the 2nd defendant. There was no proof of service on the 2nd defendant. The plaintiff indicated that she would pursue the action without the 2nd defendant. The 1st defendant submitted that it would no suffer any prejudice and therefore did not object to the matter proceeding without the 2nd defendant. More
This matter was filed in this court as a court application. The applicant seeks an order in the following terms:
“1. House number 4 Mimosa, Westview also known as Stand 2986, Westview Kadoma shall be awarded to LainaNdoro (Nee Mutimodyo) as the surviving spouse to the late Robert Ndoro, DR 828/09.
2. The first and final liquidation and distribution account, Annexure “D” shall be amended accordingly.
3. The first respondent shall pay the costs of this application in his personal capacity if he opposes this application.” More
The applicants applied for a constitutional declaratory order. They moved the court to declare that corporal punishment in school and in the home violates the rights of children as set out in sections 51, 53 and 81 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe. They filed their application in terms of s 85 (1) (d) of the country’s Constitution (“the Constitution”). More
The applicant seeks a provisional order in the following terms:
TERMS OF FINAL ORDER SOUGHT
1. The 3rd respondent’s sentence under CRB 3039/22 against the applicant be and is hereby suspended pending the finalization of the appeal under case No. CA 205/22, App 38/22.
2. The respondents to pay costs of suit jointly and severally, one paying the others to be absolved.
INTERIM RELIEF GRANTED
Pending the confirmation or discharge of the provisional order, an interim relief is granted on the following terms –
1. The sentence of the 3rd respondent against the applicant in case No. CRB HREP 3039/22... More
The applicant seeks a provisional order in the following:
“TERMS OF FINAL ORDER SOUGHT
It be and is hereby ordered that:
(a) Provisional order granted in this matter be and is hereby confirmed;
(b) The order of the court a (sic) Harare Magistrates’ Court in CRB 4041/12 dismissing the applicant’s exception to the criminal charges levelled against him in terms of s 7 of the Children’s Act be and is hereby set aside;
(c) The charges pressed by the respondent in the Harare Magistrates’ Court in CRB 4041/12 be and are hereby quashed; and
(d) There be no order as... More
