This is an application for condonation of late filing of an application for review and extension of time within which to file the application for review.
The respondent took a point in limine before the main application was argued. The respondent raises in limine, that after filing the application with the necessary founding affidavit, the applicant then proceeded to file a supplementary affidavit. Such Supplementary affidavit, it was argued, ought to have been filed with the leave of court or a judge. It was submitted that the failure to obtain such leave, means that the applicant violated the Rules of... More
Appellant was in respondent’s employ and on the 10th October, 2018 was dismissed after having been found guilty of acts of misconduct in terms of the Public Service Regulations Statutory Instrument 1 of 2000. More
This is a conjoined application for condonation and extension of time for late filing of an application for leave to appeal in terms of Rule 22 of the Labour Court Rules, 2017 and an application for leave to appeal in terms of the Labour Court Rules. The application is opposed. More
This is an application for condonation for late filing of an application for review and extension of time within which to file an application for review. It is opposed. More
On 26 February 2025 this court handed down an order dismissing with costs the applicant’s application for condonation for late noting of an appeal and extension of time within which to file the same. More
The plaintiff is the owner of house number 10 Capri Road, Highlands Harare (“the premises”) which he let out to the first defendant by written lease agreement signed on 15 October 2008 through the agency of Vercham Real Estate. The lease agreement expired on 30 September 2009. More
The delay in hand down of the judgement is sincerely regretted. This is an application for quantification of back pay/salary arrears and benefits. The application was filed pursuant to a judgment of the Supreme Court handed down on 24th November. The Supreme Court, through the judgment, allowed with costs the appeal against Applicant’s dismissal. As a result the court set aside and substituted this court’s judgment as well as the hearing officer’s determination of guilty on the charge as levelled. The Applicant was to be reinstated to his original position without loss of salary and benefits from the date of... More
As its name implies, the applicant is a housing cooperative society set up with the noble objective of providing accommodation to its members. The respondent is a member of the applicant. Stand 7296 Budiriro 4, is a property developed by the applicant and allocated to the respondent for his occupation. More
This is an application for summary judgment. The basis of the application is that sometime in 2010 respondent was supplied upon request on credit, cake flour by the applicant to its various branches throughout the country. The cake flour was valued at US$828 518.05. This amount was due and payable on 7 December 2010. Respondent acknowledged its indebtedness by securing US$700 000.00 via a surety mortgage bond number 1020/2010 by a company called Medworth Properties (Pvt) Ltd. A further US$218 240.00 was acknowledged via an acknowledgement of debt signed by respondent on 27 October 2010. Given the foregoing, the appearance... More
Before me were three matters divided into Volume I, Volume II AND Volume III.
Volume I is a court application under HC 5594/21 pitting MUGODHI APOSTOLIC FAITH CHURCH and DAVISON MANGOMA and 35 other named respondents. The application is for an interdict to bar respondents from entering into any of the first applicant’s premises or from interfering in any manner with its congregants, members, leaders, activities programmes and gatherings of its members. More
This matter was set down for hearing on the 2nd of July 2021 as an opposed application. However, neither the respondent nor his legal practitioners appeared for the hearing despite the respondent’s legal practitioners being served with the notice of set down. Resultantly, Mr Sithole applied for a default judgment to be granted in favour of the applicant. More
The appellant, Mr Mugove Chatizembwa, was employed by the respondent as a quarry superintendent. On 21 April 2013 he was on duty. Without seeking his superior’s authority he took a company vehicle and went to a certain farm which is about 25 kilometers from his work place. The purpose of this trip was personal to him. Whilst there he met one of his superiors. They exchanged greetings. Thereafter they discussed his presence at that place at the material time. What transpired at that venue is best captured by his report to the Mines Engineer which I will quote in full. More
The appellant,despite his protestations of innocence, was convicted of plain robbery as defined in s 126 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act,[Cap9:23]. He was sentenced to 5 years imprisonment with one year suspended on appropriate conditions. He still protests his innocence and seeks this court’s intervention over his grievance of improper conviction and sentence. This is a classical case in which the dangers of relying on the uncorroborated evidence of a single witness are well demonstrated. I will demonstrate. More
On 12 February 2018 the applicant obtained from this court a default judgment against the first respondent in proceedings under case no HC 206/18. The default judgment directed the first respondent to pay the applicant an amount in the sum of USD175 720-00, together with interest at the prescribed rate and costs of suit. On 19 February 2018 the applicant issued a writ of execution. The second respondent attached certain assets belonging to the first respondent, including three immovable properties. The attachment sparked further litigation between the parties. More
