This is an appeal against the entire judgment of the High Court handed down on 7 December 2020, in which the court a quo dismissed the appellant’s application for an interim interdict against the respondent. More
Seven days after the declaration on 3 August 2013 of the results of the Presidential election (hereinafter referred to as “the election”) held on 31 July 2013, showing Robert Gabriel Mugabe (hereinafter referred to as “the first respondent”) as the winner of the election, Morgan Tsvangirai (hereinafter referred to as “the petitioner”), who was one of the candidates contesting the election, lodged with the Constitutional Court (hereinafter referred to as “the Court”) a petition challenging the validity of the election under s 93(1) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (No. 20) Act 2013 (hereinafter referred to as “the Constitution”). More
This is an application for an anti-dissipation interdict in which the applicant wants the respondents prohibited from disposing of certain immovable properties pending the finalisation of the applicant’s pending summons claim under HC 2397/23. More
I heard this application on 7 December, 2021. I delivered an ex tempore judgement in which I dismissed the same with costs.
The High Court registrar addressed a letter to me. He did so on 2 March, 2021. He requested reasons for my decision. He advised that the applicant intends to appeal my decision. These are they:-
The applicant applied for a stand at the Remainder of Carrick Creagh of s 4 of Borrowdale Estate, Carrick Creagh Township, Harare. He filed his application through Sally Mugabe Housing Co-operative (“Sally”) on 27 March, 2007. He was/is a member of Sally. More
This is an appeal that was filed on 2 December 2013. The background of the matter as given by the Appellants in their heads of argument in that the Appellants were employed by the Respondent in different capacities on different dates within its establishment. More
On 28th March 2014 this Court dismissed an appeal by Applicants having upheld points in limine raised by the Respondent. Applicants allege they were employed by Respondent on different dates. On 15th April 2010 Respondent entered into a franchise agreement in terms of which Applicants were temporarily transferred to Upridge Investments (Pvt) Ltd. Respondent disputed employing all the Applicants. On 30th September 2012 Arbitrator Lucas confirmed that the franchise agreement had been cancelled on 21st March 2012. Applicants alleged that their contracts of employment were terminated through a letter dated 28th January 2013. Respondent on the other hand alleged that... More
This is an application for the following declaratur in terms of s 14 of the High Court Rules Act [Chapter 7:06]
1. That the franchise agreement be and is hereby declared to have been terminated by notice given by the respondent on 31 March 2012. More
This is an application for a declaratur in terms of s 14 of the High Court Act. The background facts are that the applicant was employed by the respondent, Mashonaland Tobacco Company (“MTC”) under a fixed term contract from 2006, as a messenger in the stores and procurement department. It is the applicant’s contention that in 2009 his salary was reduced without his consent and knowledge. He also states that in 2015 his contract was changed from a fixed term contract to a seasonal contract. It is from this that the applicant’s grievance stems. In essence, the applicant’s complaint is... More
In this application the applicant seeks a declaratur nullifying the appointment of second to tenth respondents as provincial governors on the grounds that such appointments are ultra vires and or in contravention of the Constitution of Zimbabwe. The applicant also seeks such consequential declarations as may become necessary in the event that this court nullifies the appointments. More
The melancholic drama unfolding in this case makes one wonder whether these are the wages of marrying during the sacred month of November in apparent violation of a well-established Shona custom prohibiting marriage during that month. The first applicant’s intended marriage to the second applicant is mired in perpetual controversy and acrimony as the couple continues to be hounded by the first applicant’s marriage to the second respondent allegedly contracted on 21 November 2011. More
The background to this judgment is that the petitioner has approached the Supreme Court for certain relief and on Thursday 17 November 2005 the Supreme Court reserved judgment in the matter in which the petitioner seeks the nullification of the order of this court of 10 June 2002. As the presiding judge in the matter I was not cited as a party and therefore I could not formally place before the superior court my own view of the matter. More
The three applicants were arraigned before the Magistrates Court on three (3) counts of robbery. They applied for bail pending trial. The National Prosecuting Authority filed a response to the application in which it is not opposed to the granting of bail. More
On 30 September 2006 the parties entered into a marriage in terms of the Marriage Act [Chapter 5:11]. The couple were blessed with three children namely, Shamah Alisandra born on 24 June 2007, Jayden born on 14 September 2011 and Shalom born on 31 October 2016. Just over 12 years later, on 12 December 2018 plaintiff issued summons for divorce. More
