This is an application for summary judgment.
On 18 August 2010 the applicants issued summons against the respondents seeking the following relief:-
“(a) Delivery of 70 5000 litres of diesel
(b) Payment of the replacement value of 70 5000 litres of diesel at the market rate
prevalent on the date of judgment;
(c) Costs of suit on the legal practitioners and client scale” More
The 1st and 2nd Respondents referred complaints of alleged unfair practice, unlawful termination of employment contracts, non- payment of wages and allowances. It is common cause this was during the Covid-19 period where employees were being requested to stay at home. Before the Designated Agent 1st and 2nd Respondents (who were claimants) submitted that 1st Respondent was engaged on 1st December, 2007 and was later elevated to position of Floor Supervisor Grade 10 in 2013, 2nd Respondent was employed in 25th December 2014 as a senior section cook Grade 6. They submitted that in February 2020 they reached agreement with... More
MAKONESE J: This matter has been brought before this court as a stated case in terms of Rule 199 of the High Court, Civil Rules, 1971. The rule provides that parties to a civil action or suit, may after summons has been issued, concur in a statement of the questions of law arising therein in the form of a special case for the opinion of the court. Rule 199 (3) makes further provision that upon the argument of such case, the court and the parties shall be at liberty to refer to the whole contents of such documents, and the... More
The respondent obtained a default judgment which it now clings on to for dear life resulting in this application for rescission of that default judgment.
The facts
In 2008, the parties voluntarily entered into an agreement wherein the respondent offered its land for development by the applicant. Some of the material terms of the parties’ agreement were that;
1. The applicant was obliged to service the whole designated area and provide sewer and water connection, storm water drains and culverts in addition to developing roads according to the specifications.
2. The applicant would commence servicing the land in issue within... More
This is an appeal against an arbitral decision declining jurisdiction to deal with the matter. In 2004 the Appellants were dismissed from employment. In 2006 their reinstatement was ordered by the Midlands Local Joint Committee. The decision to reinstate was affirmed by the Negotiating Committee after the Respondent appealed. Thereafter the Respondent noted an appeal against that decision in this Court. The appeal was noted on 14 June 2013. The Respondent did not comply with the order of reinstatement. The matter was referred for compulsory arbitration for quantification of damages. More
[ 1] This dispute traces its origin to the Land Reform Programme. For a recap on the purpose and background to that programme, see BHUNU JA`s concise treatise in TBIC Investments (Private) Limited & Anor v Kennedy Mangenje & 5 Ors SC 13-18.
[ 2] At stake herein is a one-hundred-hectare tract of state land located in the environs east of Harare. The applicant (“N-Frays”) is a land developer. Its objects in such capacity include securing vacant (farm) land and taking all necessary steps to establish thereon a residential township.
[ 3] First respondent (“the Minister”) is an administrative authority... More
This is an application for a declaratory order that payment made at the respondent’s premises to an apparent employee of the respondent be declared valid payment for purposes of discharging the applicant’s indebtedness to respondent. More
At the hearing of this matter Respondent raised a point in limine. Respondent submitted that the appeal was not in compliance with Rule 15 (1) (a) which stipulates that three copies of form LC3 must be completed. He went on to say that from Appellant’s notice of appeal it is clear that rules of Court were not followed and this is a fatal omission. Proper reasons must be given for a departure from the rules of this Court. In casu Applicant has not given any, and has not asked for condonation. Respondent submitted that the appeal is non-existent and must... More
The appellant is challenging the decision of the Negotiating Committee dated 22 March, 2011 which decision upheld an earlier determination by the Mashonaland Local Joint Committee to reinstate the five (5) respondents without loss of salary and benefits from the date of dismissal.
The material background facts to the matter are as follows;
The five (5) respondents were all employed by the appellant in various capacities that included a shop salesmen, a storekeeper and a till operator. They were all employed to work within one of the appellant’s stores. During the period 8 April 2010 to 19 August 2010 two... More
Appellant was employed by the Respondent as an overseer. On 23 February 2009 he was suspended from employment pending a disciplinary hearing. The allegations against him were that on 10 February 2009 at 1400 hours he took part in an unlawful collective job action. He was alleged to have left his work station without authority and sat at Mutondo square with other participating employees. A disciplinary hearing was subsequently held and he was found guilty and was dismissed from employment. He appealed to the General Manager and subsequently to the National Employment Council for Chemicals and Fertilizers Manufacturing Industry but... More
The applicant, a firm of legal practitioners seeks the following order:
"Interim Relief Sought
2. Pending the discharge or confirmation of the provisional order:
2.1 The respondent shall cause Robin House, situated in George Silundika Avenue, Harare, to be reopened forthwith.
2.2 The respondent shall ensure that the applicant and its lawful visitors have unrestricted access to Robin House." More
Respondent filed its heads of argument on 23January 2013, two years after being served with Appellant’s heads. In terms of rule19 (2)(a) of this court’s rules, Respondent was enjoined to file his heads of argument within 14days of receipt of Appellant’s heads. The Respondent is barred and the appeal is rendered unopposed in terms of rule19(3)(a) of the Labour Court Rules (SIJ9/06). In terms of the Labour Court rules I am proceeding to deal with the matter on the merits as unopposed. More
The plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as “Tshuma”) issued summons out of this court in February 1994 seeking the eviction of the first and second defendants (hereinafter referred as “the Musemburis”) from a property known as number 18 Ridgeway South, Highlands, Harare (hereafter referred as “the property”) and payment of damages. The Musemburis counterclaimed for the cancellation of the transfer of the property to the applicant and the subsequent transfer of the same property to them. The two matters were consolidated and are the subject matter of this trial. More
This is an application for condonation of late noting of an appeal. It is trite that in order for an application of this nature to succeed, the applicant must give a reasonable explanation for:
1. The inordinate delay.
2. Reasons for the delay.
3. Prospects of success on the merits. More
