The applicant approached this court seeking a prohibitory interdict in terms of r 60(1) of the High Court Rules, 2021. The court granted the order and the first respondent requested reasons for granting the order More
This is an application for bail pending trial. The application is opposed. The applicant is facing a charge of murder in contravention of section 47 (1) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act (Chapter 9:23)
Factual background
It is alleged by the state that on the 15th February 2020 at around 20:00 hours, the deceased, one Thulani Ndlovu was at his residence at Lovendale, Bulawayo. The applicant had an altercation with one of the deceased’s brothers. The deceased intervened in an effort to restrain the two from fighting. The deceased then left the scene and went back to his... More
This is an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court at instance of the applicant employee following this court’s decision to allow the appeal noted by the respondent employer in a labour case pitting it and the applicant.
Basic facts of the matter are that respondent approached the Labour Court on appeal after the applicant had been reinstated to his original position at work after his dismissal by respondent on misconduct allegations in contravention of the Respondent Code of Conduct. More
At the hearing, the appeals were consolidated with the consent of the parties,and heard in the following manner; the appellant in SC 109/21 made submissions as the first appellant, the appellant in SC 15/21 as second appellant, and the appellant in SC 17/21 as the third appellant. The first to third respondents in all the appeals remained as previously cited, with the Registrar of Deeds being the fourth respondent, though there was no appearance on his behalf. Although there were three different appeals attacking the same judgment, I intend to address all the appeals in one composite judgment as the... More
The dispute in casu has its genesis in matters of employment. It behoves me to give a brief chronology of what transpired that resulted in the applicant finding itself in the quagmire in which it now is. The parties were embroiled in a salary review dispute which culminated in an arbitral hearing before arbitrator C Sithole. On 15 December, 2010 the arbitrator made an award in favour of the applicant’s employees, awarding them an across the board increment backdated to September, 2008. The parties were given until 15 February, 2011 to agree on the mode of payment of the arrears... More
This is an application for registration of an arbitral award. The application is opposed on the basis that the Respondent appealed against the award to the Labour Court.
The papers before me show that the appeal in question was dismissed by the Labour Court on 8 July 2011 and there is no appeal pending at the moment. That is not to say it would have made any difference at all to the Respondent’s case because it has not argued that the operation of the arbitral award was suspended by any order of court. In terms of section 92E (2) of... More
The applicant, a legal entity, is a relentless litigator. It has been in and out of this court on not less than five occasions. It has taken some of its cases to the Supreme Court on not less than two occasions. In all the stated effort, its aim and object, it states, were to wrestle Stand 11, Bulawayo Light Industrial Site of Bulawayo Township Lands (“the property”) which is held under Deed of Transfer 462/1977 from the first respondent to itself. More
This is an application seeking to interdict the respondents from evicting the applicant from a property sold at a sale in execution. The applicant further seeks an order setting aside the transfer of the property sold in execution without setting aside the sale in execution itself. The order sought by the applicant is in the following terms:
“IT IS ORDERED THAT
1. The 1st respondent be and is hereby interdicted from evicting the applicant or those claiming through it from stand 11, Bulawayo Light Industrial Site of Bulawayo Township Lands, Bulawayo pending the finalization.
2. The transfer of Stand 11,... More
The plaintiff‘s claim is for delictual damages for pain and suffering and loss of amenities. The plaintiff was arrested at his workplace on 12 November 2016 on allegations of unlawful entry into premises together with his workmates and detained at Budiriro Police Station. He claims that whilst in detention, the first defendant assaulted him resulting in him sustaining injuries. He was taken to court where he was acquitted of the charges he was facing. The plaintiff’s case is that the first defendant who is a member of the Zimbabwe Republic Police assaulted him together with other unidentified officers whilst he... More
The basis of the application is that the applicant is the current owner of a certain piece of land called Lot 1 of Orange Grove Hartley (“the farm”). On 12 December 2003 the Minister of Lands, Land Reform and Resettlement (the Minister) published a notice of acquisition of the farm in the Government Gazettee. More
This is an appeal against the decision of Arbitrator E.R. Chako that was handed down on 1 July 2015. The award was couched as follows;
“(1) The applicants were unfairly dismissed.
(2) The applicants be reinstated without loss of benefits or the respondent pay damages in lieu of reinstatement.”
The background history of this matter is that the respondents were employed by the appellant. Respondents raised their grievances to the appellant. This however resulted in a hearing and subsequent dismissal. The matter went for arbitration and the Arbitrator ruled in respondents’ favour. More
This urgent chamber application was brought before me on 19 February 2020 in chambers. I adjudged that the application was not urgent. On 11 February 2020 the applicant’s counsel wrote to the Registrar seeking audience with the court and address it on the aspect of urgency. The matter was set down for hearing on 17 February 2020. On the date of hearing the first respondent indicated that it was more concerned about the order of costs being prayed against the cited magistrate. The second respondent opposed the application arguing that the matter was no longer urgent given the background of... More
The Applicant approached this court seeking review of proceedings in the Magistrates Court on the basis of alleged gross procedural irregularities warranting intervention by this court. The thrust of the Applicant’s argument being that the proceedings be quashed and trial be ordered to commence afresh before a different Magistrate. The First Respondent opposed the application while the Second Respondent did not strictly oppose the application with Mrs Matsikidze pointing out that they were not endorsing the initial State opposition for postponement to allow applicant’s Counsel to attend in the court a quo. The Second Respondent further expressed it would abide... More
The appellant in this case was charged and convicted of assault as defined in section 89 (1) (a) of the Criminal Law Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23]. Upon his conviction he was sentenced to 12 months imprisonment of which 4 months imprisonment were suspended for 5 years on the usual condition of future good conduct. More
This is an application made in terms of s 85(1)(a) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (No. 20) Act, 2013 (“the Constitution”) for appropriate relief based on a freedom of religion claim. The application raises questions of the constitutionality of the policy and the actions of the education authorities of compelling schoolchildren to salute the national flag and to say the words “Almighty God, in whose hands our future lies” in the process of reciting a pledge of allegiance to the country. More
