The applicants are charged with contravening s 47 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Cap 9:23]. At the hearing of the matter counsel for the applicants indicated that he was withdrawing the applications by seventh and eighteenth applicants. Mr Musarurwa indicated that the applications by these two would be prosecuted separately. More
This is an appeal against the whole judgment of the Labour Court handed down on 30 June 2017, which upset the determination of the Appeals Board of the National Employment Council (NEC) Banking undertaking of 15 July 2016 made in favour of the appellant. More
This is an urgent chamber application for an order interdicting the first and second respondents from occupying, excavating, drilling, removing, transporting, processing, or exporting about five million tonnes of iron ore fines stockpile situate at Mkwakwe Railway Siding in the Buchwa area of the Midlands Province. The applicant also asks that the third respondent be barred from issuing any export permit in respect of the said iron ore. The applicant claims ownership of the iron ore in question. More
The plaintiff a company duly incorporated in accordance with the laws of Zimbabwe, instituted a claim for payment of a sum of US$39 895-97 together with interest thereon at the rate of 5% per annum and costs of suit on the attorney-client scale. More
The respondent issued summons against the applicant in case No.
HC1926/11 for payment of the sum of US$16 059-75 for work and labour done and materials
allegedly supplied to the defendant in October 2010 together with interest and costs of suit. The
respondent alleged in its declaration that, at the instance of the applicant, it had installed and
commissioned a filling line for the applicant and after presenting its invoice, the applicant had
failed to pay. More
This is an application in terms of s 318 of the Companies Act [Cap 24:03] for an order declaring the first respondent to be personally liable for the judgment debt of Coldrac Products Private limited t/a Tacoola Beverages in case number HC 3159/11.
The relief that the applicant seeks is that: More
On 24 November 2016, I granted an application for dismissal for want of prosecution made in terms of rule 236 (3) (b) of the rules of the High Court, 1971. The fuller reasons for so doing have been requested and these are they. More
The plaintiff and the defendant entered into an agreement for the supply of fertilizer. Pursuant to that agreement the plaintiff alleged that it paid US$124 500 to the defendant fertilizer. The defendant failed to deliver. The plaintiff therefore issued out summons for payment of the $124 500 being restitution for the amount paid and interest at the prescribed rate of 5% per annum from 22 September 2017 to the date of payment in full, and costs of suit on an attorney client scale. More
The circumstances giving rise to these proceedings are these. On 21 August 2002, the parties signed a contract in terms of which Delta Operations (Pvt) Ltd. (“Delta”) would deliver a quantity of barley suitable for use as stock feed to Origen Corporation (Pvt) Ltd (“Origen”) during June and July 2002 and in return Origen would deliver during October 2004 an equivalent quantity of barley suitable for brewing. The relevant provisions of the agreement are these –
“1.1 During the month of June and July 2002 Netbrew shall supply to Origen at the Northern Products grain silos in Chinhoyi a quantity... More
On 12 May 2017, the plaintiff issued summons against the defendant claiming payment of $5 198 076.92 representing its 51% share of profits for three years from 2014-2016 in terms of an indigenisation agreement together with prescribed interest from 31 June 2014 and collection commission. More
Applicant employee approached this court on 3 review grounds namely
1. Improper constitution of disciplinary Committee
2.1 Grossly irregular disciplinary proceedings based on fact that done after matter
referred to a labour officer per Sec 101(6) of the labour Act.
2.2 Denial of legal representation
3) Grossly unreasonable findings without evidence.
The Chairperson of the disciplinary Committee was sued in his official capacity so on the date of the review hearing only the employee and the employer appeared to argue the matter. The employer took points in limine vis grounds 2.1, 2.2, and 3 saying that these were not review... More
This matter was originally set to be heard on 01 April 2020. Due to the onslaught of the CORONAVIRUS pandemic, the Chief Justice issued an instruction to the effect that courts would only deal with very urgent matters and the rest had to be postponed. This was in order to avoid unnecessary contaminations and curb infections. On the date of the hearing, applicants’ legal practitioners were contacted telephonically and informed of the position. It was also suggested to them that,
with their consent, the matter could be determined on the merits if they were satisfied that the documents they had... More
Please take note that the order handed down on the 10th of November, 2023 under reference LC/H/ORD/878/23 carries the following errors and omissions;
i. The Applicant was not in default but rather the Respondent was the one who was in default therefore the representative for the Applicant shall be amended from “in default” to “Mr S. Mwandiwanza.” (Legal Practitioner)
ii. The legal practitioner’s name who appeared for the Applicant on 1 November (the date of the hearing) was misspelt as “Mr.S Mwandiwanzira” it is corrected to read as ‘Mr.S.Mwandiwanza’. More
