On 28 October 2016 after hearing the applicant and counsel I granted an order in favour of the applicant herein. On 31 October 2016 a letter by the first respondent’s Counsel addressed to the Registrar requesting written reasons for my decision was placed before me. More
The Respondent was employed by the Appellant as a shift leader and maintenance for a period of more than five years. His duties were to take care of repairs and maintenance of factory machines which included extruders, expellers, grinding mills and other machines. It is alleged that on 26 September 2012 he switched off extruder number 1 and increased the speed of extruder number 2. The increased speed caused extruder 2 to be congested resulting in production stoppage. The stoppage caused a production loss of $1 487. Respondent was charged in terms of section 4 of SI 15 of 2006.... More
Applicant is seeking rescission of a judgment by Consent in terms of 49 r 449 (1) (c) which provides as follows:
“449 Correction, variation and rescission of judgment and orders.
(1) The court or a judge may, in addition to any power it or he may have, mero motu, or upon the application of any party affected, correct, rescind or vary any judgment or order-
(a) ………………..
(b)
(c) that was granted as a result of a mistake common to the parties” More
This is an appeal against the judgment of MUSAKWA J. After hearing submissions by counsel and considering the matter, the appeal was dismissed and the Court issued the following order:
“1. The appeal be and is hereby dismissed in its entirety.
2. There will be no order as to costs.”
The Court indicated that reasons for judgment would follow. The file in this matter, together with a number of other similar files where judgment had been given with reasons to follow, was inadvertently filed with the completed matters. This accounts for the delay in handing down the following reasons for... More
The applicants approached the court seeking for rescission of judgment in terms of order 49 rule 449 (1) of the High Court Rules, 1971. The issue that falls for determination is whether or not the judgment sought to be rescinded was erroneously granted. More
An application for default judgment under Order 9 Rule 57 of the High Court Rules, 1971 does not ordinarily prompt a written judgment. The nature of the relief sought, for which Rule 57 is invoked is such that a Judge should not over ruminate on whether or not the claim is one for a debt or liquidated demand. It must appear ex facie the summons, declaration with any supporting documents that it is a claim for a debt or liquidated demand. The extraordinary circumstances of this matter have impelled me to render a judgment nevertheless. The plaintiff is a law... More
This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Zimbabwe ordering the return of all the goods belonging to the first and second respondent attached pursuant to a default judgment granted earlier by the same court against the second respondent. The judgment appealed against also ordered that the returned goods remain under judicial attachment until the finalisation of the proceedings between the parties. More
This is an urgent chamber application for a spoliation order. At the hearing, the applicant applied for an amendment to the order sought in its draft order which was granted. Having struck out the interim relief, the terms of the final order sought are now as follows;
“The application for spoliation be and is hereby granted. The status quo ante before the spoliation is restored and the 1st respondent and anyone acting, through them be and is hereby ordered to remove its fence over and to vacate the mining claim described as Mutaki, 10 Hectares Block, Goromonzi under Certificate of... More
Respondent was in the employ of Appellant, a firm of legal practitioners. Following the termination of her contract, Respondent approached the Ministry of Labour Offices. Attempts at conciliation failed and the matter was referred to arbitration. The arbitrator found in favour of Respondent. Appellant is not satisfied with this award and has appealed to this Court. More
This was an urgent chamber application for a stay of execution. I never got to determine it on the merits. That makes the facts of the dispute largely irrelevant. This judgment is primarily to explain the trajectory of the matter after it was filed. More
This is a consolidated matter between Cut Rag Processors and its employees. Luckson Zvenyika, together with Nyangawo and 13 Others were employed in different capacities by Cut Rag Processors “Cut Rag”. It was alleged that the employees engaged in an unlawful work stoppage. Zvenyika was the Chairman of the Workers Committee he was charged and upon conviction a penalty of dismissal was meted out. Zvenyika noted an appeal to the Grievance and Disciplinary Committee whose decision was that Zvenyika be reinstated from the date of dismissal without loss of salary and benefits. The employer Cut Rag dissatisfied by the order... More
Having held a pre-trial conference, I concluded the matter in favour of the plaintiffs by granting them the order prayed for which was in the following terms as per summons: More
This is an urgent application for stay of execution submitted to meon 11 November 2013. I directed that the matter be set down for 13 November 2013 in my chambers. In that day the first respondent filed his response where inter alia hepointed out that the matter had already been decided by my brother the HONOURABLE MANGOTA J in case No.8602/13. I instructed the registrar to supply me with that file and it was brought to my chambers.
Upon perusal of that file, I noticed that indeed the HONOURABLE MANGOTA J had dealt with the same application for stay of... More
The respondent sued the appellant in the Magistrates Court sitting at Gweru for payment of arrear rentals in the sum of US$5 081.89, interest and costs of suit. More
Sometime in 2010 or thereabout applicant and first respondent entered into an oral lease agreement in terms of which first respondent leased a certain shop known as Bali Shoes No. 28, Angwa Street, Harare. Since then the applicant has been in undisturbed and peaceful possession, use and enjoyment of the said shop.The applicant avers that on Friday 22November 2013, and in violation of the provisions of s 24 of the Commercial Premises (Rent) Regulations, 1983, the first respondent has unlawfully and wrongfully prevented the applicant from possessing, using or occupying the said shop. She claimed that first respondent’s conduct was... More
