In a judgment No LC/H/255/19 delivered on the 9th August, 2019, I upheld respondent’s point in limine, to the effect that applicant’s appeal was improperly before the Court as applicant had not exhausted the internal remedies provided in terms of section 8(b) of the Labour (National Employment Code of Conduct) Regulations Statutory Instrument 15 of 2006 (THE NATIONAL CODE). Consequently I struck off the appeal for having been prematurely brought before the Court. More
This an application for stay of execution of an arbitral award handed down by Arbitrator E.F. Chitsa. Applicant alleges that pending the appeal lodged with this Court, Respondent’s actions to execute the judgment be stayed. What is interesting to note is that Respondent has partly executed the judgment and Applicant had to offer security which was lodged with Respondent’s legal practitioners. More
“The first respondent be and is hereby interdicted from alienating or otherwise disposing of or dealing with the rights of the third and fourth respondents arising out of the memoranda of understanding concluded between the applicants and the first respondent at Harare on 25 July 2008 and 13 October 2006, pending the outcome of an arbitration to be instituted by the applicants in Paris in accordance with the afore mentioned memoranda of understanding More
This matter was set to be heard by my brother BHUNU J on 24 January, 2011 at 09.00 hours but could not because the first respondent had filed its opposing papers shortly before 09.00 hours. BHUNU J then postponed it sine die to enable the applicants to file a replying affidavit by 31 January, 2011 and thereafter, parties were to file supplementary heads of argument by 3 February, 2011. Subsequently, the matter was set down for hearing on 4 February, 2011 but was then postponed to 14 February, 2011 when it found its way to me for the simple reason... More
The background to this matter is that Fangudu farm was acquired from respondents by the fourth respondent. A portion of the farm was allocated to applicant. Whilst a dispute regarding the acquisition was still going on applicant moved onto the farm. Applicants sought a spoliation order by way of urgent chamber application and this was granted in case number HC 7170/06. This provisional order was confirmed by PATEL J in judgment number HH 128/09 which was handed down on 21 December 2009. The order by PATEL J was declaratory in nature. More
The application for condonation for late noting of appeal is dismissed. The reasons are as follows:
As correctly stated by the respondent’s deponent, the applicant has not advanced any grounds of appeal that merit the granting of the application. The purported grounds are just endless submissions that are not clear and concise. It is difficult to ascertain what exactly the applicant is attacking in the judgment of the court a quo. With this, it is difficult to see how and where exactly the court a quo erred. More
The 4 applicants are secondary school teachers who, until recently, have been employed as such at Prince Edward School in Harare. The first applicant joined that school on 1 January 2008 as a mathematics teacher, the second applicant joined on 1 January 2005 as a history teacher, the third applicant joined on 1 August 2008 as a music teacher and the fourth applicant joined on 8 September 2008 as a music teacher before being moved to the English Department. More
This application concerns the rescission of a court order dated 19 October 2022 under HC 6383/22 placing the applicant under corporate rescue. The aforesaid order has a clause providing for the appointment of the corporate rescue practitioner, namely, Obert Madondo. In addition, the order subjects the applicant to the supervision, management and control of the corporate rescue practitioner as provided for by the Insolvency Act [Chapter 6:07]. More
This is an application for bail pending appeal. The application is opposed. Applicant appeared before a Regional Magistrate at Bulawayo on the 12th of August 2022 facing a charge of contravening section 128 (b) of the Parks and Wildlife Act (Chapter 20:14), as amended by section 11 of the General Laws Amendment, 5/2011, that is possession of a specially protected animal or trophy. Applicant was convicted and sentenced to the mandatory 9 years imprisonment for being in possession of a pangolin carcass. Applicant has noted an appeal against both conviction and sentence in this court. This application has been motivated... More
On 29 April 2010 and in case number HC 2816/10 the applicant instituted action proceedings against the respondents claiming the sum of GBP 39 848-00, interest on that amount at the prescribed rate from date of summons to date of payment in full and costs of suit on a legal practitioner client scale and collection commission. The defendant filed a Special Plea and Exception. There was no response to theSpecial Plea and Exception. The defendants proceeded to set the matter down on the unopposed roll. On 11 August 2010 the Special Plea and Exception were upheld and the plaintiff’s claim... More
This is a court application filed in term of section 318 of the Companies Act [Chapter 24:03]for an order declaring 1st and 7th respondents to be personally liable for the judgment debt in Ames Engineering (Pvt) Ltd (applicant) v Nu Aero (Pvt) Ltd t/a Fly AfricaHC 2915/18. The basis of this application is that the directors of the 6th respondent (company) conducted its business in a manner that is fraudulent, alternatively reckless or grossly negligent.
CassindyMugwagwa was joined as 7th respondent in terms of an order obtained in HC 775/19. On the 3rd April 2019, applicant filed a notice of... More
The respondents are former employees of the appellant. The borne of contention is the classification of the appellant as to which National Employment Council (NEC) it belongs for a proper determination of the respondents grades and salaries.
The respondents’ contracts of employment were terminated in March 2015. A dispute ensued as to whether the termination was lawful. The parties eventually settled the matter before a conciliator. The respondents’ terminal benefits were paid. More
This is a mining dispute where two competing miners are jostling for the same piece of land. The 2nd respondent is a mining syndicate formed as a co-operative in 1988. It had fifty-eight (58) members. After its formation, it was granted mining rights over Partridge 2 and 3 mines at Esigodini. The respective registration numbers for these claims are35484/34463. The syndicate has at all material times been exercising their mining rights. More
At the end of the appeal proceedings we dismissed the appeal with costs. We have now been requested to furnish what is referred to as a full judgment and reasons for the dismissal of the appeal.
The respondent applied before the Trial Court for an interdict against the appellants. The interdict was specifically to stop appellants from bringing building materials and from conducting any construction at the disputed business stand at Machongwe Growth Point pending the finalisation of an eviction matter under GL 152/19. More
The applicant, Amina Mukuya was customarily married to Austin Mukuya, who died on 15 November 2012 leaving 4 children. Sometime in 1981 the deceased acquired a lease within an option to purchase stand C63 Chegutu Township from Chegutu Municipality. The rental status granted to the deceased was upgraded to home ownership status in 1988. The papers from Chegutu Municipality show that one Imulani Mukuya acquired ownership of the stand in 1993, the record reflects cancellation of 2254/88 and registration of 3169/93 which reflects the names of Imulani Mukuya. Sometime in 2014 Imulani Mukuya sold C63 Chegutu8 Township to the respondent. More
