These two court applications were filed by the same parties over the same dispute. Later, the respondents under HC 585/19 filed an application under HC 1682/19 for the matter to be consolidated and enrolled as contested matters at the end of the 2nd term. The application was not opposed and I granted it by consent. I then directed that the two matters be set down for hearing on the same day. Both lawyers prepared heads of argument in respect of both applications. The two applications were then argued on the 2nd August 2019. For ease of reference, case number HC... More
This is an appeal against the decision of the Labour Court which in turn upheld the decision of the arbitrator dismissing the appellants’ claim for reinstatement on account of unlawful dismissal. At the close of argument, we unanimously dismissed the appeal with no order as to costs. Upon issuance of the order, we indicated that our reasons for the order were to follow in due course. More
The first respondent is a church organization whereas the appellant is a member of a housing cooperative known as Joseph Musika Housing Cooperative. Although the Housing Cooperative was a party to the proceedings in the court a quo, it has not appealed against the court’sjudgment against it. The second respondent is a government Minister and owner of the state land in dispute. The disputed piece of land is commonly known as Stand Number 16549 Hatcliff Harare (the stand). More
The appellants are appealing against the entire judgment of the High Court delivered on 24 May 2017 under judgment number HH329/17. Thatjudgment granted the respondent a provisional spoliation order in the following terms:
“TERMS OF THE FINAL ORDER SOUGHT
That you show cause to this Honourable Court why a final order should not be made in the following terms:
1. The first, second and thirdrespondents be and are hereby interdicted from interfering in any manner with the applicant’s businessoperations at the tuck shop situated at Gateway Primary School. Including but not limited to barring her potential customers from buying from... More
This is an appeal against the wholejudgment of the Labour Court handed down on 1 August 2019, dismissing an application for the confirmation of a draftrulingof a labour officer (second respondent), to the effect that transfer of the employees (appellants) from Kwekwe Brewery to the first respondent constituted a transfer of an undertaking in terms of s 16 (1) of the Labour Act [Chapter 28.01]. More
Applicant has approached this court on a certificate of urgency seeking the following relief:
“Interim relief sought
That pending confirmation of this order on the return day, the following relief is granted:
1. The provisional order granted in case number HC 167/19 on 19 March 2019 is hereby discharged. More
This is an appeal against the whole judgment of the High court handed down on 15 June 2016, granting a declaratory order in favour of the respondent. The judgment declared binding and enforceable certain agreements concluded between the respondent and Interfin Bank Limited and further compelled the first and second appellants to honour the terms of the agreements. More
This is a referral by the High Court for determination under s 24(2) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe of questions of alleged violations of the fundamental rights of the applicants guaranteed under ss 13(1) (right to personal liberty); 15(1) (right not to be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment) and 18(1) (right to the protection of the law). More
This is an appeal against the whole judgment of the High Court, dismissing the appellants’ application for an order setting aside the decision of the Master of the High Court in terms of s 52 (9) (i) of the Administration of Estates Act [Chapter 6:01]. More
On 2 September 2016, the High Court (MTSHIYA J) granted a provisional order in favour of the respondents in the following terms:-
“IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1. The 1st, 2nd and 3rd respondents and any person acting through them be and are hereby interdicted from infringing on the applicant’s Trademarks No. 1710/200 in Class 34 by using the name RG or any packaging likely to deceive or cause confusion on or in relation to any of the goods for which the marks are registered.
2. The 1st, 2nd and 3rd respondents and any person acting through them be and are... More
The first appellant is the Minister of Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs,while the second appellant is the Attorney General.The respondent,Nyasha Chiramba ,is a law student who introduces himself as a firm believer in human rights.
Therespondentfiledaconstitutionalapplicationinthecourtaquoforamandamuscompellingtheappellantstocomplywiths106(3)oftheConstitutionofZimbabwe2013 [ “the Constitution”], by initiating the process of enacting the Act contemplated in the subsection. The respondent asserted locus standi to bring the application on the basis that he has an interest in enforcing compliance with the supreme law of the land. More
This is an appeal against part of the judgment of the High Court granting a spoliation order and other consequential relief in an application at the instance of a shareholder on behalf of a company. More
This is an application for condonation for the late filing of an appeal and extension of time within which to note an appeal. The application is made in terms of r 43 (3) as read with r 39 (4) of the Supreme Court Rules, 2018. More
The appellants in both cases averred in the court a quo that as of 4 June 2020 they were in peaceful and undisturbed possession of the property called Stand 856 Salisbury Township of Salisbury Lands, measuring 892 square meters, also known as No. 44 Nelson Mandela Avenue Harare, otherwise known as Harvest House. It is also known as Morgan Richard Tsvangirai House. The building consists of six floors all of which were occupied by officials and employees of the first appellant in HC 2811/20, a political party.
On the night of 4 June 2020 the appellants were dispossessed of these... More
This is an appeal against a judgment of the High Court, sitting at Harare, dated 31 May 2017 wherein the court granted absolution from the instance at the close of the plaintiff’s case. More
