This is a court application for a declarator made in terms of s 14 of the High Court Act [Chapter 7:06]. The applicant seeks the following relief:
a) That it be declared that the union that existed between applicant and the deceased being James Chigwedere was a putative marriage.
b) That it be declared that the applicant is entitled to inherit a certain piece of land situate in the District of Salisbury being remainder of Stand Number 3042 Glen Lorne Township Salisbury District measuring 14326,55 square meters in her capacity as the putative spouse and such property shall not form... More
The respondent (as plaintiff) issued summons in the court below claiming the ejectment of the appellant (as defendant) and all those claiming occupation through her from No.1 Winston House 109 Leopold Takawira Street Harare. Holding over damages were also sought at the rate of ZW$2 500.00 per month from the date of summons to the date of ejectment as well as costs of suit. Having heard the parties in a trial, the court a quo granted the order. More
The factual background to the claim is as follows. The appellant is the holder of rights, title and interest in an immovable property known as 34819 Unit ‘G’ Seke, Chitungwiza (the property). In December 2020, the appellant entered into an agreement of sale with the first respondent in terms of which she sold her rights in the property to the latter. The first respondent complied with all his obligations in terms of the said agreement and demanded cession of rights in the property into his name. The appellant was initially cooperative, but subsequently turned hostile. She refused to effect cession... More
The brief facts of the matter are that the applicant was arraigned before the Bindura Magistrates Court on 22 July 2024 being charged with one count of unlawful detention as defined in s 93(1)(a) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23] (“the Criminal Code”); two counts of contempt of court as defined in terms of s 182 of the Criminal Code and one count of assault as defined in terms of s 89(1)(a) of the Criminal Code. On the charge of unlawful detention, it is alleged that on 18 July 2024 he unlawfully deprived Xu Yang, Simbarashe... More
Applicant (the employee) applied for a rescission of the judgment handed down in default of his appearance at the Labour Court on 13 June 2012 in favor of the Respondent (the employer). This forms the basis of this judgment.
The background of the case is that the employee was dismissed by the employer following disciplinary proceedings which were conducted in his absence at the workplace. His matter ended up at the Labour Officers and finally at arbitration where the arbitrator made an order wherein among other things the employer was ordered to reinstate the employee to his original position. More
When the parties appeared before me in this matter on 2 October 2024 for a pre-trial conference, it was apparent that there were two related points of law which needed to be settled before the trial could proceed as they had the potential of disposing of the matter without the need of considering the merits. Both parties in their pre-trial conference memorandums had identified the issue of whether the plaintiff’s claim was res judicata or not but the defendant had gone further to raise the issue of whether or not there was a valid cause of action by the plaintiff... More
This is an appeal against the decision of the appeals officer which decision upheld the decision of the hearing officer. The appellant was charged and convicted in terms of section 15.9.1 of the Old Mutual Code of Conduct. It reads-
“Failure to fulfill the expressed or implied conditions of the contract of employment or any breach of the employment contract”.
The charge further specified Clause 8(1) of the employment contract which reads-
“The employee will perform his/her duties in the best interests of Old Mutual and will refrain from any action which may in any way harm the good name... More
This is applicant’s third attemptat being admitted to bail following two previous failed applications. He brings this application in terms of section 116 (c) proviso (ii) of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act, [Chapter 9:07] (“the CPEA”) which entitles one who has been unsuccessful in previous bail applications to institute a fresh one, the latter which however must be based“new facts” which were hitherto not placed before the court in such previous application(s) or those which have since arisen in the intervening period. More
On 9 January 2008 the respondent engaged the appellant as an Operations Contract Manager in terms of a written agreement. The agreement provided that the appellant would be an area manager responsible for Ngezi North. The preamble to this agreement read as follows:
Sandvik Mining and Construction Zimbabwe have entered into an agreement with various mines to provide maintenance service contracts. Under the terms of these contracts, Sandvik Mining and Construction Zimbabwe has agreed to make human resources available to these Mines, in order to maintain their equipment. More
This is an appeal against the entire judgment of the Labour Court handed down on 13 November 2015. In that judgment, the court a quo dismissed an application for review, brought by the appellant against the decision by the respondent summarily retiring him from employment at age 60. More
This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court dismissing with costs, an application by the appellant seeking an order restraining the transfer of or in the event that the property had already been sold, an order reversing that sale and giving the appellant the right to purchase certain immovable property commonly known as no 8 Price Road, Emerald Hill, Harare. More
The applicant approached the Constitutional Court (“the Court”) in terms of r 32(2) of the Constitutional Court Rules, 2016 (“the Rules”) seeking leave to appeal against an order of the Supreme Court (“the court a quo”) which was couched as follows:
“WHEREUPON, after reading documents filed of record,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
The appeal having been withdrawn, the appeal be and is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.” (emphasis added) More
Application for condonation for late noting of review application was filed at the instance of the applicant employee. The respondent employer opposed the condonation and raised a point in limine. It is the point in limine which is the subject of this judgment.
The employer takes the point that the condonation application is improperly before the court as it is based on a defective notice of review. Its argument is that LC5 the form on which a review application is to be made makes it clear that the application shall be accompanied by a founding affidavit which the respondent would... More
1. This is an appeal against the decision of the employer finding the Appellant guilty as charged and imposing a penalty of dismissal. The appeal is against both the conviction and the penalty. The appeal was opposed. More
