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
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
