The applicant herein seeks a declaratory order that: it overpaid withholding tax to the respondent from January 2007 to October 2008 in the total sum of US$215,878.65; it is therefore entitled to offset the withholding tax payable for 2009 and 2010 against that overpayment; and all withholding taxes due by it for 2009 and 2010 have been settled in full. The respondent denies that any such overpayment was made or that the applicant is entitled to any set-off against its liability for withholding tax. Both parties seek an order for costs on a higher scale. More
This was a civil appeal. The dispute was deceptive in its simplicity. In the court a quo the parties even went on a stated case. But it was a tricky matter of interpretation of a statute. We thank counsel for commendable research and able argument. More
This matter was argued before me on 25 October 2010. Counsel for both the applicant and the respondent undertook to furnish me with authorities for the arguments advanced on behalf of both litigants. Unhappily counsel did not act on their undertaking with the result that the authorities filed by counsel for the respondent was only availed on 11 November 2010. To date I have not received any from the applicant’s counsel and as a result this judgment will be prepared without the benefit of those authorities More
This is an appealagainst the whole judgment of the High Court dated 20 January 2020, dismissing an application to strike down s58 of the Income Tax Act [Chapter 23:06] for violating the right to equal protection of the law and the right to administrative justice as provided by ss 56 and 68 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe, 2013. More
This judgment is in respect of two matters, HC 2128/21 and HC 2166/21. The two matters were heard together because the substance of their complaints is the same. Both matters were brought by way of application. HC 2128/21 was instituted as an urgent court application while HC 2166/21 was brought as an urgent chamber application. Both applications are opposed by some of the respondents. Opposing papers, answering affidavits and heads of argument were filed following a case management meeting with the parties’ representatives at which the dates for filing the papers were set by consent. More
This is a unanimous decision of the court. The applicant filed an urgent court application which was allocated to us on the 14th of June 2021. After perusing it, we set it down for hearing today at 2pm for the purpose of doing case management.
An hour before the hearing we were served with a notice of withdrawal of the application with a tender for wasted costs.
The respondents’ lawyers appeared for the hearing. However, the applicant’s lawyers did not appear even after we had directed them to appear through the Registrar’s office. The Registrar informed us that they said... More
The applicant filed an urgent court application seeking an order for the committal to prison of the first respondent, Luke Malaba for contempt of court. This was in view of a declarator issued by the High Court on the 15th of May 2021 which he is said to have violated. More
On the 14th October 2018 the Zimbabwe Football Association (ZIFA) Southern Region Soccer League elections were held at Bulawayo. The applicant stood against 3rd respondent for the position of chairman of the Southern Soccer Region. In a tightly contested election, the applicant lost the contest. 3rd respondent was duly elected and took over the position. Aggrieved by the outcome, the applicant noted an appeal with the 1st and 2nd respondents. Before noting the appeal and on 29th October 2018 the applicant addressed a letter to the ZIFA Electoral Committee in the following terms: More
The appellant was employed by the respondent as a sales representative. On 7 July 2014, the appellant was suspended from employment and charged with misconduct for breaching s 4(f) and 4 (g) of the Labour (National Employment Code of Conduct) Regulations SI 15 of 2006(hereinafter referred to as “SI 15 of 2006”). The charges comprised of incompetence and inefficiency in performance of duties, failure to meet monthly targets and failure to carry out duties as per the job description. More
Applicant was employed by Respondent as a teacher. On 23 March 2016 she was arraigned before a disciplinary authority on allegations of misconduct she was found guilty and was dismissed from employment. More
This is an application for quantification of damages for loss of employment. The application arises from a judgment handed down by MAXWELL J on 2 December 2016, the operative part of which reads, in paragraph 4, as follows:
“Respondent be and is hereby ordered to reinstate Appellant without loss of salary and benefit. If reinstatement is not an option, Respondent is to pay damages in lieu of reinstatement the quantum of which is to be agreed upon between the parties. If the parties fail to agree on the quantum either party can approach the Court for quantification.” More
This is an appeal against the decision of the Respondent Company’s Appeals Committee which confirmed the Appellant’s dismissal following allegations of breaching the Respondent’s Code of Conduct. More
After a trial the two appellants were convicted of attempted murder as defined in section 47 as read with section 189 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23]. They were each sentenced to 10 years imprisonment of which 4 years were suspended for 5 years on the usual condition of future good conduct More
The applicants approached the court on 15 February 2013 on appeal against dismissal of application or bail pending appeal against both conviction and sentence. Upon considering the written and oral submissions by both appellant counsel and state counsel I dismissed the application pointing out in summary that the appellants’s application lacked merit and had no prospects of success. More
The applicant applied for condonation of late noting of an appeal. The respondent opposed the application.
The material facts are as follows:
1. The applicant worked for the respondent as a truck driver.
2. He was charged with misconduct.
3. A hearing was held. He was found guilty.
4. By letter dated 12 May 2014 the respondent dismissed him from employment.
5. On 30th June 2014 the applicant applied to this court for condonation of late noting of appeal under reference LC/H.APP/300/14.
6. Justice Chidziva dismissed the application on 9 January 2015.
7. The judgment was made on the basis... More
