This is an appeal against an arbitral award.
The respondent was employed by the appellant in the capacity of finance manager with effect from 2004. During the course of employment, some contractual benefits were allegedly not paid from as far back as 2006. The respondent lodged a complaint claiming his outstanding salaries and benefits in or about June 2015. When the matter remained unresolved at conciliation, it was referred to arbitration. More
Three points in limine were raised by Respondent challenging Appellant’s grounds of appeal.
These were that:-
- The grounds of appeal 1, 2 and 3 are not properly before the Court as they are all on questions of fact.
- In the grounds of appeal, the parties are not properly set out.
- Appellant has approached the Court with dirty hands, as it did not comply with the directive given by the Arbitrator to the effect that he was to proceed with the matter on the merits. More
The applicant seeks the grant of a draft order in these terms:
“IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1. The respondent be and is hereby ordered to vacate certain piece of land situate in the district of Salisbury called stand 174 Merwede Township of Lot 1 of Subdivision D of Merwede of Glaudina of Subdivision A of Gillinghan, Commonly known as Exor Service Station, Snake Park.
2. The respondent to pay costs of suit.” More
This application is in terms of section 85 (1) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment Act (No.20), 2013 whereby the applicant seeks a declaratory order to the effect that the Petroleum (Mandatory Blending of Anhydrous Ethanol with Unleaded Petrol) (Amendment) Regulations, 2013 (No.1) otherwise referred to as Statutory Instrument 147A of 2013 is constitutionally invalid in that it violates his right to property as enshrined in s 71 (2) as read with s 71 (3) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe. It is an application between the applicant and the 1st Respondent, being the Minister responsible for the administration of the... More
On 11 September 2018, the first respondent, a local authority established in terms of the Urban Councils Act, entered into a consent order with the second to thirty-second respondents (“the respondents”) who are its employees. The consent order appears at p 114 of the record. It was issued under HC 6908/13. It allocated to the respondents stand numbers 3515to 3553 excluding stand numbers 3536 and 3552 of Valley Lane Plan TPX 1290, Crowborough, Harare. More
This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court handed down on 4 May 2018. The appellant had, before that court, sought a declarator that the Presidential Powers (Temporary Measures) (Amendment of Electoral Act) Regulations, 2016 published as Statutory Instrument 117/2017 were null and void and of no force or effect. The appellant had also sought an order declaring the enabling Act, the Presidential Powers (Temporary Measures) Act, [Chapter 10:20] to be inconsistent with the Constitution of Zimbabwe and, as a consequence, the striking down of that Act. In the alternative, the appellant sought a declarator that s... More
On 14 April 2021, after reading documents filed of record and hearing Counsel for the applicant and for the respondents, I pronounced the following order:
“IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1. The first respondent’s actions, on 21 September 2020, in impounding the applicant’s Subaru motor vehicle, without warrant of court order, were unlawful, null and void
2. Part 1, relating to items 1 to 4 being fees that are expressed in United States Dollars, of the Vehicle Registration and Licensing (Amendment Regulations 2020) (No 21), published as Statutory Instrument 166 of 2020 be and is hereby declared to be ultra vires... More
As you will be aware, the application among other things seeks to challenge the constitutionality of the Presidential Powers (Temporary Measures) Act [Chapter 10:20] amended to Electoral Act Regulations 2016 published in Statutory Instrument 117/2017.
3. As you are aware of, the regulations we (sic) enacted on 15 September 2017 and therefore they will naturally expire by 15 March 2017.
4. In order to avoid a situation where arguments will be academic on aspects of the regulations, and given the fact that both parties have filed heads of argument in this matter., we seek that the matter be determined urgently.”... More
1. This is an application for bail pending trial. Applicant is being charged with the crime of murder as defined in section 47 (1) of the Criminal Law [Codification and Reform] Act [Chapter 9:23]. It being alleged that applicant caused the death of his wife Niccolah Mabvure (deceased) by stabbing her with a kitchen knife. The deceased suffered deep cuts on the neck, stomach and the right cheek. She bleed and died at the scene of crime. More
This is an appeal in terms of section 65 of the Income Tax Act, ( ITA) where on 10 October 2018 the parties agreed that the main issues for determination would be the following:
“1. Whether or not the separate mining operations under the Appellant’s portfolio were inseparable and substantially interdependent, such that capital allowances in respect of the different mines should have been allowed under one tax return for each tax year period.
2. In the event of a finding being made that the issuance of separate income tax assessments for each mining unit was proper, whether or not... More
On 12 March 2015 respondent’s Acting General Manager (AGM) dismissed appellant’s appeal against her dismissal from employment. Appellant then appealed to this court against the decision. Respondent opposed the appeal. More
The applicants approached this court seeking an order in the following terms:
“1) The decision by the first and second respondents in refusing to renew the fishing permits for the first, second and third applicants be and is hereby set aside.
2) The first and second respondents are hereby directed to issue fishing permits to the first, second and third applicants upon payment of the requisite fees and compliance with one statutory requirements.
3) The first and second respondents shall pay costs of suit jointly and severally, the one paying the other to be absolved More
The plaintiff and the defendant are husband and wife who were married in terms of the then Marriage Act [Chapter 5:11] in 2006. Whereas the plaintiff said that this followed an unregistered customary law union entered in 2004, the defendant insisted that this was in 1999. Three children were born to this marriage namely Takudzwa L. Shereni (born 8 August 1999), Tinotenda Shereni (born 22 December 2004) and Tawananyasha B. Shereni (born 28 November 2012). More
