This matter was instituted as an urgent chamber application for an interdict preventing the respondents from removing “any bags of maize from (the) applicant’s premises” pending determination of the matter. The final order sought is that the applicant be given leave to process the maize in its custody into mealie-meal. After hearing argument from the legal practitioners representing the applicant and the respondents I dismissed the application with costs and indicated that my reasons would follow. The applicant has asked for the written reasons. These are they. More
The applicant in this matter was convicted of the murder of his girlfriend. Because of extenuating circumstances, he was sentenced to life imprisonment. He was aged 19 at the time of his conviction and has been in gaol since 1995 for almost 21 years. The gravamen of his application is that life imprisonment without the possibility of judicial review or parole is unconstitutional. More
Appellant’s grounds of appeal as captured in the notice of appeal are that:-
- the National Employment Council Appeals Committee (NAC) grossly erred and misdirected herself on the facts and the law, such gross misdirection amounting to an error in terms of the law by setting aside the dismissal of the Respondent on alleged grounds of procedural defects when it was clear that the Respondent had a case to answer. More
This is an urgent chamber application. The matter was set down for hearing on21 March 2012 and an ex-tempo judgment given the same date. The respondents have requested for reasons for my decision. More
Appellant’s grounds of appeal were four-fold and read as follows,
“1. The Code of Conduct used by the company to dismiss the Appellant is not registered with the NEC and therefore is inconsistent with the National Code or Labour Relations Act [Chapter 28:01].
2. The Disciplinary Hearing Committee misdirected itself on the facts and law.
3. The same committee’s hearing was motivated by bias.
4. The Disciplinary Hearing Committee conducted its proceedings in an irregular manner.” More
The applicant approached the court on the 8th of January 2021 under the auspices of s 85 (1) (a) of the Constitution which permits any person acting in their own interest to approach a court alleging that fundamental rights have been violated. This approach was on an urgent basis. The application was against the Minister of Health as the first respondent and as the alleged primary violator of the rights complained about. The other respondents, namely, the Minister of Home Affairs, the Minister of Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs, and, the Attorney General, were also cited but only in their... More
The Applicants, Obert Madondo N.O., the appointed Corporate Rescue Practitioner (hereinafter referred to as the “CRP”) of Amcast (Private) Limited, and Zimbabwe Diamond and Allied Mineral Workers Union (hereinafter referred to as “ZDAMWU”), have filed an urgent chamber application seeking a provisional order to interdict the Respondents from interfering with the operations of Amcast (Private) Limited ( hereinafter referred to as “Amcast”). The Respondents challenge the urgency of the application and raise several preliminary points in limine. More
The applicant is a young police officer of 37 years of age residing at Chikurubi Support Unit police camp. He is alleged to have sexually abused his elder brother’s ten year old son with whom he resides at the same place. The allegation is that he forcibly sodomised the complainant on three different occasions during the period extending from December 2010 to April 2011.
The complainant took refuge at Highlands Police Station and made a report to a police officer. He was examined at a clinic resulting in the accused’s arrest. The applicant is now applying for bail pending trial. More
The appellant appeared before the magistrate sitting at Beitbridge, facing a charge of Criminal abuse of duty as a Public Officer as defined in s 174 (1) (a) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23]. The appellant was employed by the Zimbabwe Revenue Authority (ZIMRA) as a Loss Control Officer. He was jointly charged with a workmate who was employed as a Revenue supervisor. On the 23rd of December 2014,Beitbridge Boarder Post, a vehicle consisting of a horse and two trailers was duly cleared by ZIMRA officials in the normal course of business at the border post.... More
This is an appeal against the decision of Respondent’s Final Appeals Committee which upheld the tribunals aquo (Appeals Committee and Disciplinary Committee) verdict of guilty and penalty of dismissal imposed on the Appellant. More
In a judgment LC/H/60/20 I dismissed applicant’s appeal in its entirety. Aggrieved, applicant filed the current application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.
On the date of hearing of this application, applicant made an oral application for the removal of the bar operating against him for failure to file timeously his heads of argument as required in terms of Rule 26(1) of this Court’s Rules S.I. 150 of 2017. More
This is an application for condonation for late noting of appeal against conviction and sentence, extension of time within which to appeal and leave to prosecute the appeal in person More
The applicant is a member of the legal fraternity and, therefore, an officer of the court. He alleges that he has an interest in human rights and the rule of law. He moves me to declare Statutory Instrument 127 of 2021 [“the instrument”] which the first respondent who is the President of Zimbabwe made on 26 May 2021 and published in the Government Gazette Extraordinary unconstitutional and to have the same set aside. He filed his application under
s 85(1)(d) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe. More
This is an appeal against the decision of the Respondent’s General Manager who upheld the Appellant’s dismissal following a disciplinary hearing where Appellant was found guilty of unlawfully disobeying a lawful order and gross inefficiency in performance of his work in breach of the Respondent’s Code of Conduct. More
This is an appeal against the decision of the respondent’s disciplinary committee to dismiss appellant from employment. The appellant was charged with:
(i) Improper performance of duty and
(ii) Dishonesty, including falsifying of documents.
It was alleged that the appellant processed applications by two Americans i.e. S. Megman and A. Hugeon as shown by visa sticker numbers 061213 and 061216. The originals of those visa stickers were then found in the passports of two Indian nationals who are in Category C of the visa region. The visas also appeared to have been stuck into the passports using glue which is... More
