Welcome to Midlands State University Library

Court Judgements



Browse all Court Judgements
As its name implies, the applicant is a housing cooperative society set up with the noble objective of providing accommodation to its members. The respondent is a member of the applicant. Stand 7296 Budiriro 4, is a property developed by the applicant and allocated to the respondent for his occupation. More

This is an application for summary judgment. The basis of the application is that sometime in 2010 respondent was supplied upon request on credit, cake flour by the applicant to its various branches throughout the country. The cake flour was valued at US$828 518.05. This amount was due and payable on 7 December 2010. Respondent acknowledged its indebtedness by securing US$700 000.00 via a surety mortgage bond number 1020/2010 by a company called Medworth Properties (Pvt) Ltd. A further US$218 240.00 was acknowledged via an acknowledgement of debt signed by respondent on 27 October 2010. Given the foregoing, the appearance... More

MUGODHI APOSTOLIC FAITH CHURCH AND WASHINGTON MUGODHI N.O VERSUS DAVISON MANGOMA AND TEDIUS MUNYANYI AND NGOBSON BANDIRAI AND NIGO MIKE MUKARATI AND CEPHAS CHATORA AND PRINCE MACHIRIDZA AND RUZAI GWAVAVA AND MANFRED MADAKA AND TALENT MAPWEZA AND TOBIAS MARWA AND CHARLES MASANGO AND GEORGE MANGWIRO AND OBERT TAKABVIRA AND HAMAYANGU NGANGA AND MATAMBUDZIKO CHIYAMBIWA AND MIRIRO BARE AND THERESA NHAITAI AND TAONESA TAKABVIRWA AND CAINOS DANDANYIKA AND WEDZERAI MAGEJO AND MANASSA SENGWE AND PHILIP MUSUVA AND MUDIWA SAVIOUS MUTSARO AND HOSIA SHAMBAMUTO AND WEBSTER NYEKETE AND SHUPIKAI MATAMBO AND BRIGHTON MAHWITE AND SAMUEL MAZURU AND JACOB MACHIKANDA AND GIVETMORE DZIMBANHETE AND RUNGANO FAMBISAI AND TAWANDA MUPAMHANGA AND PETER KWATYA AND ERIA PARIMWA AND ERUWATI NYANDORO AND TONNY SUGAUKE (2022-08-24)
Before me were three matters divided into Volume I, Volume II AND Volume III. Volume I is a court application under HC 5594/21 pitting MUGODHI APOSTOLIC FAITH CHURCH and DAVISON MANGOMA and 35 other named respondents. The application is for an interdict to bar respondents from entering into any of the first applicant’s premises or from interfering in any manner with its congregants, members, leaders, activities programmes and gatherings of its members. More

This matter was set down for hearing on the 2nd of July 2021 as an opposed application. However, neither the respondent nor his legal practitioners appeared for the hearing despite the respondent’s legal practitioners being served with the notice of set down. Resultantly, Mr Sithole applied for a default judgment to be granted in favour of the applicant. More

The appellant, Mr Mugove Chatizembwa, was employed by the respondent as a quarry superintendent. On 21 April 2013 he was on duty. Without seeking his superior’s authority he took a company vehicle and went to a certain farm which is about 25 kilometers from his work place. The purpose of this trip was personal to him. Whilst there he met one of his superiors. They exchanged greetings. Thereafter they discussed his presence at that place at the material time. What transpired at that venue is best captured by his report to the Mines Engineer which I will quote in full. More

This is an appeal against Respondent’s decision to dismiss the appellant. More

The appellant,despite his protestations of innocence, was convicted of plain robbery as defined in s 126 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act,[Cap9:23]. He was sentenced to 5 years imprisonment with one year suspended on appropriate conditions. He still protests his innocence and seeks this court’s intervention over his grievance of improper conviction and sentence. This is a classical case in which the dangers of relying on the uncorroborated evidence of a single witness are well demonstrated. I will demonstrate. More

On 12 February 2018 the applicant obtained from this court a default judgment against the first respondent in proceedings under case no HC 206/18. The default judgment directed the first respondent to pay the applicant an amount in the sum of USD175 720-00, together with interest at the prescribed rate and costs of suit. On 19 February 2018 the applicant issued a writ of execution. The second respondent attached certain assets belonging to the first respondent, including three immovable properties. The attachment sparked further litigation between the parties. More

This is an opposed matter wherein applicant sought an order for the appointment of second and third respondents as trustees to Centennial Trust declared null and void and the payments of costs on a higher scale. After hearing the parties I granted the order and rendered an ex-tempore judgment granting the order sought as subsequently amended. More

Issues to do with the liberty of an individual, foreign or a citizen of this country must no doubt be brought to court at the earliest opportunity. Taking into account the circumstances surrounding this particular case, I am satisfied that the application was properly brought to court on an urgent basis. More

This is an ex-parte chamber application for the registration of a restitution/ compensation order which was granted against the respondent by the Magistrates Court sitting at Harare on 8 February 2016 following her conviction in a criminal matter under case number CRB 6916/15. More

The matter initially came before the Labour Court for the confirmation of a draft ruling. The Court dismissed that application on the basis that the applicant had exceeded his jurisdiction. He had decided the issue that had been referred to him and after that, he had created another issue and decided the case on the basis of that issue which was not properly before him. The Court found that it was irregular. As a result, the Court declined to confirm the draft ruling. This was in 2021. More

This appeal centres mainly on the issue whether the Arbitrator was correct in holding that the Labour Officer and consequently the Arbitrator had jurisdiction to hear and determine this matter. Appellant’s case on the one hand was that the dispute between it and Respondent was a commercial one over which the Labour Officer had no jurisdiction whilst Respondent’s case on the other hand was that the dispute was a labour dispute over which the Labour Officer had jurisdiction. More

The matter was placed before me as an application for upliftment of the bar operating against the Applicant by virtue of its failure to file Heads of Argument. More

Respondent was in the employ of the appellant. Respondent was caught sleeping on duty and cautioned by appellant’s senior employee. He was caught in the act again on the same day and was hauled before a disciplinary committee which recommended his dismissal. The internal appeals authority upheld the penalty and the matter finally ended up with the arbitrator. The arbitrator was of the view that the penalty of dismissal was too harsh and substituted it with a Final Written Warning valid for twelve (12) months. Respondent was to be reinstated without loss of pay and benefits. Appellant is dissatisfied with... More