The facts in this case are largely common cause. Respondent was employed by the appellant. Following respondent’s termination of employment by appellant, the dispute between the parties ended up in arbitration. The issue before the arbitrator was to determine whether respondent was owed by the appellant in unpaid salaries. The arbitrator found in favour of the respondent. Appellant has appealed to this court. More
It is a common cause between the parties that after the decision was handed down in August of 2021 the appellant filed an appeal in the Labour Court. That appeal was never prosecuted to its finality. They responded argue that the appeal is still pending before the labor Court but the appellant argued that it was abandoned More
This is a matter where the respondent conceded before me that there were procedural irregularities in the manner the disciplinary hearing has been conducted though they did not file any response or heads of argument. More
This is an opposed chamber application for condonation of late noting of an appeal and extension of time within which to appeal in terms of r 43 of the Supreme Court Rues, 2018. More
This is an application for relief made in terms of s 85 (1) (a) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (No. 20) Act 2013 (“the Constitution”).
The applicant seeks a declaration that its right to fair administrative justice provided for in s 68 (1) of the Constitution and its right to freedom of association in s 58 (1) of the Constitution have been infringed by the conduct of the first, second and fourth respondents arising from the issue of a summary notice on 22 February 2016 declaring Special Grant No. 4765 to be void. The applicant is also seeking an... More
This is an application for condonation for late filing of an application for rescission of default judgment that was granted by this court on 19 March 2015. It was granted in terms of Rule 22. The applicant failed to give a reasonable explanation for failing to file a response to the appeal that had been filed by the respondents. More
This is an application in terms of s 85(1(a) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe. The appellants allege that their constitutional rights as enshrined in ss 70(1(b), 70(1)(d) and 70(1)(c) have been violated through the manner in which criminal proceedings against them were conducted in the Magistrates Court sitting at Chivhu. They seek an order that the proceedings be quashed and a trial de novo ordered before a different magistrate. More
The plaintiff’s claim is for the eviction of the defendant from 7.5 Mile peg Simon Mazorodze Road, Waterfalls, Harare, payment of arrear rentals in the sum of US$31 500-00, holding over damages in the sum of $1 500-00, being monthly rentals from April 2015 to date of eviction, payment of arrear water bill in the sum of US$20 800-00 as of March 2015, payment of current water bill that shall be accruing from the date of issuing the summons to the date of eviction. More
On the 21st March 2007 this court granted an order by consent in HC6497/05 stating, inter alia, that: -
“1. Within 60 days of receipt of a valuation report issued by a valuator nominated by the second respondent, the applicant shall pay to the estate of the late Lovemore Mutandwa DR1135/05, 50% (fifty percent) of the assessed value of Stand 3693 Highfield (the property).
2. Within a further 10 days of the payment of the 50% share, the first respondent, failing which the Deputy Sheriff, shall sign such documents as may be necessary to pass transfer of the property to... More
For 31 years the plaintiff and the defendant lived together as husband and wife in an unregistered customary law union (“the union”). During the subsistence of the union the parties acquired a sizeable number of assets, both movable and immovable. The plaintiff said they pooled their resources and acquired those assets jointly. The defendant denied there was any such pooling of resources, and said that each of them acquired their own assets separately. He further said on the dissolution of the union the plaintiff took the bulk of such items as she herself had acquired. More
This is an appeal against the whole judgment of the High Court dated 18 January, 2018 which dismissed the appellant’s application for a declaratory order. The appellant had sought an order in the court a quo in the following terms:
“1. The property known as No 36 Marlborough Drive, was the matrimonial home between applicant and her deceased husband Samuel Zachary Dick Munangatire.
2. The property devolves (sic) onto the applicant as surviving spouse in terms of ss 3 and 3A of the Deceased Estates Succession Act, [Chapter 6:02].
a. ALTERNATIVELY to 1 and 2 above;
3. That the first... More
On the 26thDecember 1970, the applicant married the late Samuel Zachary Dick Munangatire(herein after referred to as Samuel) in terms of the civil marriage laws of the United Kingdom (UK). More
The plaintiff and defendant were married in terms of the Marriages Act [Cap 5:11] at Harare on the 16th January 1997. The marriage still subsists. The defendant is domiciled in Zimbabwe as he was born and bred in this country. Their marriage was blessed with two children who are still minors. The first child was born on 27 August 1997 and the second child on 27 July, 1999. More
Appellant was dismissed from Respondent’s employ. She noted an appeal with the Chief Executive against the findings of the Disciplinary Authority but her appeal was unsuccessful. More
