The applicant, Mega Market (Private) Limited, is based in Mutare and is a registered commercial company which specialises in the business of buying and selling various goods, groceries being eminent. Given the economic situation in Zimbabwe the applicant has joined other competitors in outsourcing groceries outside the boundaries of Zimbabwe. In such a cutthroat operating environment applicant’s drawback became the slippery green back for it to be able to pay the suppliers abroad. Invariably where the uncertainty of the economic hang up is experienced disputes arise and more [particularly where the source of the foreign currency is a commercial bank. More
MUZOFA J: The plaintiff’s claim is for damages in the sum of $35 442.00 for loss of goods and $140-00 for costs incurred in the recovery of goods. The plaintiff is in the business of distribution of fast moving goods. It transports such goods by trucks which are predominantly hired from other companies. According to plaintiff it entered into an oral agreement with the first defendant through the fourth defendant its employee for the provision of trucks. In terms of the agreement the first defendant was to transport 1 260 boxes of cooking oil from plaintiff’s warehouse in Mutare to... More
The plaintiff, a company with limited liability and carrying on business in Harare, was desirous of procuring two luxury vehicles. It sourced these vehicles from a supplier in London, England, going by the trade name of Stenham Global Services Limited. It obtained proforma invoices for the two purchases. On the invoices, the buyer was indicated as ZIMOCO LIMITED and the plaintiff as the consignee. It is common cause that armed with the invoices, the plaintiff approached the defendant with a request that it arranges for the payment due in terms of each invoice. More
The plaintiff issued summons against the defendant claiming payment of a sum of US$46 333-35 together with interest thereon at the prescribed rate from 1 September 2008 to the date of payment in full, and costs of suit. More
The applicants entered into a lease finance facility with the respondents. They fell into arrears in terms of the lease agreement. On 10 September 2014, the respondents obtained a default judgment against the applicants for the payment of $88 225.14 together with interest at the rate of 25% per annum. In terms of the order, specified equipment was also declared executable. In October 2014, which was after the default judgment had been obtained, the applicants made a payment of US$50 000.00 and subsequently made another payment on 3 and 4 March 2015 totalling US$38 000.00. They therefore argue that save... More
On 18 January 2018, applicant filed with this Honourable Court, an application for contempt of court against the three respondents. The applicant implored this Honourable court to declare that 1st, 2nd, and 3rd respondents are in contempt of its order as a result of their perceived “deliberate refusal” to comply with an order of this court under cover of case number HC 1814/12 per HonourableKAMOCHA J.
In effect, the applicant complains that the respondents have actually disobeyed two (2) orders of this Honourable Court, both by HonourableJUSTICE KAMOCHA. It is pertinent to highlight the operative parts of the two judgments... More
The appellants were convicted in the Magistrates court sitting at Masvingo of seven counts of stock theft. Although upon arraignment they denied each of those seven counts, the court a quo found in the wake of the ensuing trial that they had acted in common purpose on seven separate occasions to steal a total of fifty-three head of cattle and convicted them accordingly. Consequent upon such conviction, they were each sentenced to 9 years’ imprisonment in respect of each of the seven counts. Thirty of the cumulative sixty-three years’ imprisonment were suspended for 5 years on the usual conditions. Aggrieved... More
KABASA J: The appellants appeared before the court a quoon initial remand on 16th January 2021. They are jointly charged with two counts, viz assault and robbery as defined in sections 89 (1) (a) and 120 (1) (a) of the Criminal Law (Codification & Reform) Act, Chapter9:23.
The allegations are that the two appellants went to the first complainant, one SiambaleMuzamba’s homestead on 26 July 2019 armed with logs, axes and knives. Felix Dube who was with the appellants but is on the run, held the complainant before striking him with a fist on the forehead. He proceeded to produce... More
This is an appeal against the determination of the respondent’s Disciplinary Authority, in terms of which the appellants were found guilty of misconduct and dismissed from employment. More
The background facts are as follows:
The Respondent was employed by the Appellant as a Waiter. The Appellant levelled charges of theft or fraud. The allegations were that the Respondent had stolen from a guest in circumstances where the guest had left her bag behind in the breakfast room where the Respondent had been working. The Respondent was alleged to have taken the bag onto his clearing tray and attempted to cover it with serviettes. More
After perusing the papers and hearing counsel on 27 July 2018 I granted the following order;
It is ordered that:
“The application for condonation and reinstatement of the appeal in terms of Rule 70 (2) of the Supreme Court Rules, 2018 be and is hereby dismissed with costs.” More
This is an appeal against an arbitral award in favour of respondent. Respondent was the appellant’s group financial director. Respondent went on leave and whilst on leave, his leave was extended as there were some investigations that were underway in the Chivhu project. Respondent later received a letter terminating his contract of employment on notice. Aggrieved, respondent referred the matter to conciliation. After settlement failed the matter was referred to arbitration. More
This is an urgent chamber application in which the relief sought is a provisional order that the respondents be interdicted from carrying into execution the order in case number HC 9880/15. The final order sought is a stay of execution of the order in HC 9880/15 pending the determination of HC 11886/16 or any related matter. More
