This matter is a prime example of why litigants should seek legal advice and instruct legal practitioners to represent them in order to better articulate their claims in accordance with the relevant principles of law. As I shall show, this is a case which I find to be so hopelessly convoluted and muddied that I ought to have dispensed with it ex tempore but have been forced to write a judgment in order to ensure plaintiff understands the shortcomings of his case so that in future he either seeks expert and skilled legal advice to assist him decide whether and... More
I heard this opposed application on 20 January, 2022. I delivered an ex tempore judgment in which I dismissed it with costs.
On 27 January, 2022 the applicants wrote to the registrar of this court. They requested full written reasons for my decision. My reasons are these:
Maxwell Matsvimbo Sibanda and Gladys Sibanda who are respectively the first and second applicants in casu are husband and wife. They are both the judgment debtor in interpleader proceedings which the court of the magistrate determined on December, 2020 under case number 10791/19. Gladys Sibanda, the third applicant in casu, is their daughter.... More
The appellants who are husband and wife are appealing against the whole judgment of the Magistrates Court in Case No. 10791/19 handed down at Harare on the 30th day of September 2020. The court a quo had dismissed the appellants’ threefold applications for condonation for late filing of an application for review, review of taxation and stay of execution. The threefold applications were in respect of an earlier court order evicting the appellants from the premises known as No. 593 Prince Road, Borrowdale Brooke, Harare where they were renting.
The appellants who are self- actors’ four grounds of appeal are... More
: The applicant seeks an order in the following terms, that:
“1. The 8th respondent be and is hereby joined to the proceedings under case number HC 3203/18.
2. Costs be in the cause.”
The applicant states that he was a lessee of a property owned by the first respondent.
The parties agreed that the applicant could effect renovations and improvements on the property, which he did. In due course sometime in August 2005 the first respondent offered the applicant the property for USD 220 000. The sale did not materialise due to the first and second respondents’ fault. In... More
On 28 February 2007, the plaintiff entered into a deed of sale with the defendant for the purchase of an immovable property being subdivision B of subdivision D of subdivision A of Lot 4 of Lot A of Colne Valley of Rietfontein otherwise known as 47 Addington Lane Ballentine Park, Harare. More
: This application was heard on 10 November, 2021 and judgement was reserved. The applicant is a self-actor. The applicant wrote a follow up letter dated 22 February, 2022 on when judgement could be expected to be delivered. Messrs Wintertons legal practitioners per Mr Wilssmer had also written on behalf of the third and fourth respondents enquiring on the reserved judgement by letter dated 14 February, 2022. Messrs Mark Stonier legal practitioner on behalf of the sixth respondent and through the hand of Mr Mark Stonier himself wrote a follow up dated 26 April 2022. More
This is an urgent chamber application in which the following order is sought:
“ IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. The first respondent his agents proxies and assignees be and are hereby ordered to restore forthwith to the applicants possession of Garth farm.
2. The first respondent, his agents and assignees be and are hereby ordered to forthwith vacate Garth farm upon being served with this court order.
3. Costs of suit shall be borne by such party or parties who oppose thus application jointly and severally the one paying the others being absolved.” More
: The appellant was arraigned before the Regional Magistrate, Mutare, facing allegations of attempted rape as defined in s 189 as read with s 65 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23] after a protracted trial the accused was convicted of attempted rape and sentenced to 10 years imprisonment of which 3 years imprisonment was suspended on conditions of good behaviour. The appellant was dissatisfied with the conviction and hence he lodged the present appeal. More
. The applicant is a son to the late Jayison Mukuro. He is however not born of first respondent. The first respondent is a surviving spouse of the late Jayison Mukuro. She was duly appointed executor of the Estate late Jayison Mukuro. More
The plaintiff and the defendant who are husband and wife respectively married each other in terms of the Marriage Act [Cap 5:11] at Harare on 22 March 2007. Hitherto the plaintiff and defendant had entered into a customary law union in 2004 which marriage they upgraded as it were in 2007. More
This matter came before us as an application for confirmation of the ruling of the applicant in a matter concerning the first respondent and the second respondents being Richard Mwanza and 22 others.
On the 24th of July 2015, the first respondent gave Richard Mwanza and 22 others, three months’ notice of intention to terminate contracts of employment between them. In the letters of notice to terminate, the first respondent indicated that the decision had been reached due to the declining company performance. More
Mr Mandevere appeared on behalf of the employer. He submitted that he was raising two preliminary points for determination by the court. The first was that the entity cited in the application and in the hearing is not a legal persona. The second issue was that the order granted by the applicant was not registrable as required in terms of the Act, as amended.
I will deal with the first issue. Mr Mandewere argued that the correct employer was the Zimbabwe Power Company which owns ZPC Kariba Football Club. He stated that ZPC Kariba FC did not exist. A reading... More
After hearing the application for confirmation that had been placed before me in terms of Section 93 of the Labour Act [Cap 28:01]the court issued an order on 1st of November, 2017 in the following terms;
“IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1. The 1st preliminary point is dismissed.
2. The 2nd preliminary point is dismissed.
3. The application for confirmation of draft ruling be and is hereby dismissed.
4. The draft ruling per Sabilika N.O. dated 22nd September, 2016 be and is hereby set aside.
5. There is no order as to costs.”
The 2nd Respondent having written to the Registrar... More
This is an application for the confirmation of a ruling which was made by a labour officer in a matter pitting the first respondent employee and the second respondent employer.
The law is clear in section 5 of the Labour Amendment Act that once a labour officer has made a ruling in a dispute of right brought before him by the parties he shall within a reasonable time apply to the Labour Court to have his ruling confirmed. This is what the labour officer who is the applicant in the case at hand seeks to achieve. More
