Despite being served with the application, the second and sixth respondents did not appear for the hearing. The third respondent’s director, Mr S.T. Rusike attended the hearing and indicated that the third respondent was not opposed to the application. So was the fifth respondent who appeared in person. More
This is a chamber application for Contempt of Court Proceedings in terms of r 79(1) of the High Court Rules 2021. Sometime in January 2022, the applicant and the respondent entered into an agreement of sale in terms of which the respondent sold to the applicant rights, title and interest in stand 13993 Kuwadzana Extension Harare for USD 17000.00. Having paid USD 15400.00, the respondent became evasive and refused to take the balance of USD 1600.00. More
This is an appeal against the arbitrator’s decision where he ruled that the employer pays the employee only for the days she reported for duty between July 2023 and January 2024, quantify the wages within 14 working days of his order and make the payment within 30 days of the quantification. More
This matter has its genesis before this court as follows: Memory Manyanga issued summons against the defendants seeking that she be declared the owner of Stand 2193, Tshovani Township, Chiredzi, and further that the cession of that stand into the second defendant’s name, that is Samuel Sarimana, be declared invalid. In the alternative, she had claimed the sum of US$15 474.00 at the prevailing interbank rate as compensation for the improvements she had made to the property. Her matter was struck off the roll due to the fact that a claim of the same nature under case number HC 6094/2019... More
This is an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. The respondent raised an preliminary point that the application is improperly before the court in the absence of an application for condonation. More
The Appellant in this matter was wrongly cited as J.C. Gumbi (instead of Memory Marimira.) J.C. Gumbi is a representative from the Zimbabwe Rural District Workers Union (the union). The facts are that when Memory Marimira the actual Appellant approached the Union J.C. Gumbi noted an appeal against Respondent in his personal capacity. When the Respondent’s representative realised this they challenged J.C. Gumbi’s locus standi. Instead in its heads of argument the then Appellant J.C. Gumbi sought to justify what he termed a mistake. On the date of hearing a different representative from the Union appeared before the Court. He... More
The applicant was convicted on her own plea of guilty to 8 counts of fraud as defined in s 136 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Cap 9:23]. The total amount of prejudice is US$19 000.00 of which nothing was recovered. She was sentenced to 4 years imprisonment of which 6 months was suspended on condition of good behaviour. A further 18 months imprisonment was suspended on condition she makes restitution to the complainants leaving a total effective sentence of 2 years imprisonment. More
On 6 October 2010, the plaintiff issued summons against the defendants for payment of damages arising from injuries sustained during a road accident, being future medical expenses, loss of earnings, pain and suffering, disfigurement, loss of amenities, plus interest and costs of suit. More
MAKONESE J: This is an appeal against the whole judgment of the magistrate sitting at Bulawayo on the 19thDecember 2019.
The notice of appeal is couched in the following terms:
“Please take notice that the above named appellant hereby notes an appeal against the whole judgment of the Magistrates’ Court including the order for costs handed down by her worship A. Mbeure on 19th December 2019 in case number CC 442/2019. More
The appellants are facing a charge of bribery in contravention of s 170 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act, [Chapter 9:23], in that on 12 May 2021, second appellant, called the investigating officer in a case of fraud or alternatively, defeating/obstructing the course of justice in CRB 3996/21 involving first appellant requesting a meeting over the case. More
This is an appeal against the decision of an arbitrator sitting at Harare. The sixteen respondents are former employees of the appellant. They were retrenched by the appellant after being placed on some form of leave “garden leave” which placed them “on call” – i.e. they did not go to work but had to be prepared to go to work whenever called upon to do so by the appellant. Consequently they were unable to meaningfully make private arrangements. As a result of this they aver that they are still owed their leave days. Should that be the case they should... More
This is an old matter, an application for review. It is undesirable that a matter should be in the dispute resolution for more than nine (9) months let alone nine years. More
