This is an application for Summary Judgment in terms of order 10 Rule 64 of the High Court Rules, 1971. The application is opposed by the respondent. Applicant contends that the respondent has no bona fide defence to his claims. As is common with most debtors in this jurisdiction and beyond, the respondent has raised illusory defences, feigned coercion and seeks not to be bound by an acknowledgement of debt. More
Defendant signed an acknowledgement of debt showing an allegedly standing indebtedness to the plaintiff in the sum of US$384 177,00. When defendant failed to pay this debt, plaintiff sued him and after a contested summary judgment application, summary judgment was granted in favour of the plaintiff. It is not in dispute that at the time of granting this judgment the court had not been addressed on SI 33/2019 and on the ensuing amendments to the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe Act and the Finance Act. Consequently, summary judgment was granted in favour of the plaintiff for US$387 177,00. More
This is a chamber application for an order for leave to appeal to the Constitutional Court (“the Court”), against a decision of the Supreme Court (“the court a quo”) in terms of r 32(2) of the Constitutional Court Rules, S.I. 61/2016 (“the Rules”). The rule provides that a litigant who is aggrieved by the decision of a subordinate court on a constitutional matter only may apply to the Court for leave to appeal against such decision. More
In this matter the applicant seeks an order against the 3 respondents that they submit to DNA tests to establish applicant’s paternity and that if such paternity is so established, 4th respondent be ordered to register the late Madanlal Prag Vaghmaria as applicant’s biological father and that applicant pays for the costs of the DNA tests. More
At the hearing of this appeal we dismissed in its entirety on the turn. We indicated then that our reasons for that decision will follow. These are they.
The four appellants were convicted on their own pleas of guilty to one count of contravening s 182 of the Customs and Excise Act, [Chapter 23:02] and another of contravening s 48 of the Customs and Excise Act [Chapter 23:02] as read with s 1 of Statutory Instruments 19 of 2016 of the Control of Goods Act, [Chapter 14:05]. More
The matter had been placed before me as an appeal against a portion of the determination of Respondent Appeals Committee handed down on 6th April 2018 wherein the Committee upheld the decision of the Disciplinary and Grievance Committee finding Appellant guilty of two charges and imposing a Dismissal penalty as a consequence. The matter was heard on 30th of July, 2019. On the 28th of August, 2019 the court handed down an order dismissing the appeal and upholding the decision of the Respondent’s Appeals Committee. The Appellant on the 30th of August, 2019 wrote a letter to the Registrar requesting... More
The present appeal was noted against an arbitral award handed down on 4 July 2013 in which award the Arbitrator determined that the two Appellants were lawfully terminated from employment. More
The appellant approached this court on appeal irked by the dismissal of its application for rescission of judgment in terms of s 39 of the Magistrate Court Act [Chapter 7:10]. More
This is a trial cause which opened before me on 30 March 2023. The plaintiff claims delictual damages in the sum of US$8 173 188.00 against the defendants. The plaintiff’s case is that, for an extended period of time the defendants illegally extracted approximately 88.839 tonnes of saleable alluvial chrome from the plaintiff’s mining claims. The claims are numbers 122 to 127 located in Guruve North Dyke. As a result of the defendants’ mining activities, the plaintiff argues that it suffered loss amounting to $8 173 188.00. It is evident that what the plaintiff claims, is the amount it perceives... More
This is an appeal against the Arbitrator’s award which reinstated the Respondents and ordered the Appellant to restart the termination/ retrenchment exercise.
The background facts are as follows. The Respondents were employed by the Appellant Company (the company). On the 11th day of July 2011 the company sent a memorandum to all the employees informing them that the company was closing down for reasons the employees were aware of. The closing date was given as the 12th July 2011 which was the following day. More
The plaintiff in this matter claims the sum of US$9798.20 as damages for unlawful assault allegedly perpetrated by members of the Zimbabwe Republic Police (ZRP) acting within the course and scope of their employment. The defendants admit that the plaintiff was arrested and detained by members of the ZRP but deny that he was assaulted during his arrest and detention. More
This is an appeal against the whole judgment of the High Court which set aside the agreement of sale between the appellant and the fifth respondent, the compliance certificate issued by the third respondent to the fifth respondent and the transfer of subdivision 40715 Harare Township to the appellant under Deed of Transfer 7167/18. More
The plaintiff and defendant, who are wife and husband respectively, entered into an unregistered customary union in July 1999. They never formalised their customary union but were nonetheless customarily married from that time up until 7 September 2022 when the defendant gave his wife a divorce token (gupuro). More
This is an urgent application in which the applicant seeks the following relief:
“1. Terms of the Final Order sought
That you should show cause to this Honourable court why an order should not be made in the following terms:
(a) That the proposed meeting of 10 March be and is hereby set aside.
(b) Cost of this (sic) to be borne by the first respondent.
2. Interim Relief Granted More
