Aggrieved by the decision of this court in HB 73/19, the Applicant filed a Notice of Appeal against that judgment in the Supreme Court under Case No. SC299/19. On 19 July 2023, the Supreme Court removed the appeal from the roll because the Appeal had been deemed dismissed due to failure to provide adequate security for the Respondent’s costs of appeal. More
This matter was set down for parties to argue an application for interim relief. The record was prepared and paginated for that application. When the parties appeared the legal practitioner for the applicant withdrew the application so that parties could proceed to argue the merits. The parties had prior to their appearance before me,duly discussed and agreed to this route. I accordingly endorsed that that application had been withdrawn. More
The Respondent was employed by the Appellant as a Human Resources Officer. His office was abolished on the 22nd of July 2013. On 20th September 2013 the Appellant notified Respondent employees of its intention to terminate some of its employees through retrenchment as part of a restructuring exercise aimed at reducing operational costs. The Respondent was notified on the 20th of September 2013 that he was going to be terminated through retrenchment. His and other employees’ names were referred for approval by the Minister. Approval was then granted on the 17th March 2014. Before the approval was however granted the... More
Respondent served as applicant`s acting managing director between July 2020 and January 2021. During the period February and December 2021, he was arrested and prosecuted over matters arising in the course of duty. The charge was Criminal Abuse of Duty as a Public Officer in terms of Section 174(1) (b) of the Criminal Law, Codification and Reform Act [Chapter 9:23]. More
I heard this matter on 15 September 2021. I delivered an ex tempore judgement in terms of which I granted the applicant’s prayer as contained in the latter’s draft order.
On the following day, the respondents addressed a letter to me. They advised that they have appealed my decision. They requested what they termed a full written judgement to enable them to appeal. More
This matter was set down as a chamber application at the instance of the applicant employee. The basis of the application was her disquiet about how the employer was handling her conditions of service issues especially as regards her entitlement to motor vehicles and school fees allowance. She prays in her draft order that this court declares that the employer has failed to handle the employee’s grievances properly and that this court decrees that the benefits she claims are indeed due to her. More
The parties entered into a transport agreement in terms of which the applicant was to supply buses for the purposes of carrying the respondent’s touring clients. Having been invoiced for the payment the respondent refused to pay indicating that the agreement was concluded with an employee who had no authority to bind it and that also had an interest in the applicant company. More
ZHOU J: This is an application for a declaratory order and consequential relief made in terms of s14 of the High Court Act [Chapter 7:06] in which the applicant seeks an order couched in the following terms:
1. That the agreement of sale of 2000 gold dumps entered by applicant and first respondent on 29 October 2024 is valid, subsisting and obligating on the parties.
2. That in terms of that agreement, applicant is entitled to access and collect 1384 loads of gold dump from first respondent. More
This matter was previously set down to be heard on 27 March 2020. Due to the onslaught of the CORONAVIRUS, the Chief Justice issued instructions that in order to curtail infections, only very urgent matters were going to be entertained. The applicant was contacted telephonically and informed of the position. Applicant was also advised that the matter was going to be postponed to 10 June 2020. It was also indicated to the applicant that if he was of the view that he did not need to make further submissions and was comfortable with the documents filed of record, the matter... More
The common cause facts are that the plaintiff was the first person to be offered subdivision 2 Munemi Extension Zvimba, Mashonaland West in 2002. Notably, he is a valid offer letter holder. It is indisputable that there is no evidence of the withdrawal nor the intention to withdraw, let alone communication or proof of communication of the same or the said offer letter that was placed on record. Substantively, the plaintiff’s offer letter is extant. It has also not been challenged that the plaintiff has invested heavily on this piece of property. On the other hand, the 1st defendant, does... More
The 9 plaintiffs are the descendants of Mudyanadzo Chimombe of Gutu who once ruled as Chief Chimombe. The first defendant is the resigning Chief Chimombe he having been appointed by the President of Zimbabwe in terms of the Traditional Leaders Act [Cap 29:17]. More
The accused pleaded not guilty to a charge of murder as defined in s 47 (1) (a) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23].it is the state’s contention that on and at Canlebury Farm Chief Mutasa, the accused unlawfully caused the death of Diana Sithole by assaulting her with an unknown object on the forehead and face intending to kill her or realising that there was a real risk or possibility that his conduct might cause death and continued to engage in that conduct despite the risk or possibility resulting in the injuries from which Diana Sithole... More
