The appellants are nine cooperative societies which have been dishing out residential stands at a piece of land known as Saturday Retreat Estate (the land) for quite some time. The land is held by the first respondent by Deed of Transfer number 4035/86 and was acquired by the Government of Zimbabwe for urban development by Acquisition of Land Order dated 20 March 2014. More
1. This is a criminal appeal against the whole judgment of the High Court (the court a quo) which reversed the appellants’ acquittal by the Regional Magistrate, Harare on one count of forgery as defined in s 137 of the Criminal law (Codification) and Reform Act [Chapter 9:23] (the Code) and two counts of fraud as defined in s 136 of the Code. The court a quo, in the process of appeal, overturned the verdicts of acquittal and substituted them with verdicts of guilty on all the 3 counts for all the 4 appellants. Thereafter it remitted the matter to... More
On 13 April 2021, the applicants filed a chamber application for condonation and extension of time to appeal in terms of r 61 as read with r 43 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2018. It is opposed by the first respondent. More
The appellants appeal against the whole judgment of the High Court dated 12 March 2020. The court a quo dismissed an application wherein the appellants sought a declaration of invalidity against a confirmed sale in execution of Stand No. 230 Vainona Township of Vainona (the immovable property), the consequential vacation of the sale and the resale of the immovable property by private treaty. More
GUVAVA JA:
1. This is an appeal against the whole judgment of the High Court (court a quo) sitting at Harare dated 11 July 2019. The courta quodismissed the appellant’s application seeking a review of the first respondent’s decision to call three new witnesses during a criminal trial.
2. The delay in handing down this judgment is regretted but was due to circumstances beyond my control.
3. The facts of the matter which are pertinent to this appeal may be summarized as follows. The appellants were jointly chargedwith perjury and fraud as defined in ss 183(1) and 136 of the... More
After hearing the parties on 2 March 2017 this Court pronounced:
“It is the unanimous view of this Court that the appeal is devoid of merit and ought to fail. Accordingly, it is ordered as follows:
The appeal is dismissed with costs.
Reasons for this judgment will follow in due course.” More
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
