KABASA J: This is an application for bail pending trial. The applicant is facing a charge of murder as defined in section 47 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act, Chapter 9:23. It is alleged the applicant with 3 others were hired by one MlamuleliNcube to kill the deceased and NomalangaSibanda as they were an unwelcome competition in a gold buying enterprise. They were paid US$250. On 16th January 2021 at around 1600 hours the applicant and his 3 accomplices followed the deceased and NomalangaSibanda who were on their way fromNcema river and caught up with them at Mzingwane... More
This is an appeal against the judgment of the Labour Court handed down on 21 June 2021 which dismissed the appellant’s appeal against the decision to dismiss him from employment.
At the hearing of the appeal the court heard both the preliminary points raised by MrNkomo for the respondent and the merits of the appeal and reserved judgment. The preliminary points taken are that the appeal made to the court a quo was incompetent and ought to have failed for that reason. In addition, counsel for the respondent submitted that there were reviewable irregularities which vitiated the proceedings in the... More
1. At the conclusion of the hearing of this matter I handed down an ex tempore judgment and dismissed this application. I did so to facilitate the start of applicant’s criminal trial before the Regional Court, because I had noted from the submissions of Mr Tashaya counsel for the applicant that this application was being used to derail or stall the start of the trial. Notwithstanding that none of the parties had asked for written reasons, I decided to furnish them nonetheless. More
This matter was placed before me as an Urgent Chamber Application. I soon directed that the Applicant serve the Respondents and the matter be set down for arguments. That was done. More
This is an appeal against the refusal of bail pending appeal by the magistrate in the court a quo, made in terms of s 121(1)(6) of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act (Chapter 9:07). The appeal is opposed by the state on the grounds that the appellant had failed to show that the court a quo committed an irregularity or that it exercised its discretion unreasonably. More
This is a divorce action matter. The parties married on 26 August 2017 in terms of the Civil Marriages Act Chapter 5:11 [now Chapter 5:17] and the marriage still subsists. The marriage was not blessed with children. More
It is improper, inappropriate and wrong for litigants to malign and attack judicial officers without just cause. The right to file process asserting one’s rights does not entitle any person to use abusive language directed at judicial officers and parties to any dispute. An attack on the court and its officials is an assault on the integrity and independence of the judicial system.
The applicant’s legal battles span over a period in excess of ten years. All the judges that have handled applicant’s cases have incurred his wrath and have been accused of one thing or the other. More
The appellant appeared before a Provincial Magistrate at Plumtree on the 7th of August 2020, facing allegations of smuggling in contravention of section 182 (2) of the Customs and Excise Act (Chapter 23:02). The appellant pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 3 years imprisonment with 1 year suspended for 5 years on condition of good behaviour. More
3. The appellant is a registered commercial bank operating in Zimbabwe. The first respondent is a private company registered in accordance with the laws of Zimbabwe. The third to seventh respondents are private individuals who bound themselves as sureties and co-principal debtors in respect of a loan granted to the first respondent. The second respondent is a private limited company duly incorporated in Zimbabwe.
4. The appellant issued summons against the respondents on 13 March 2017 for the payment of US$ 368 706.62 being capital and US$ 20 654.10 being interest on the sum of US$ 368 706.62 at the... More
This is an application for leave to appeal against the decision of this court that was made on 7 August 2015. This court upheld the arbitrator’s decision to disallow the employer from including new evidence. This court in its findings stated that
“The respondents were convicted and dismiss from employment. It would appear the appellant just wants to bolster its judgment in its favour. Is the appellant trying to prove that the dismissal was unfair or that not sufficient evidence was led to warrant the dismissal of the respondents” More
This is an appeal against a determination of the National Employment Council (“NEC”) Appeals Board for the Banking Undertaking.
The respondent is a former employee of the appellant. She was employed as a bank teller, when, on 26 March 2010, she declared a shortfall in the amount of US$1 160-00. She was charged of “gross negligence causing serious loss to the bank” which is a Category D offence, section 11 (15) of the Code of Conduct for the Banking Undertaking, SI 273 of 2000. Following a disciplinary hearing, she was found guilty and dismissed from employment. More
The First Respondent is employed by the Appellant. First Respondent was suspended from employment by the Appellant. The Appellant also reported the matter to the police resulting in the arrest of the First Respondent. The First Respondent’s bail conditions barred him from visiting his workplace. It is also common cause that First Respondent’s suspension was without salary and benefits. First Respondent referred his matter to Second Respondent and the latter determined that First Respondent’s suspension was illegal having regard to the provisions of the Code of Conduct. Appellant is dissatisfied with the decision and has approached this for relief. More
On the 21st September 2021 at Harare the Designated Agent (DA) of the NEC Banking Undertaking made a determination. He set aside the terminations of Respondents’ employment by Appellant. He further ordered Appellant to either reinstate the Respondents or alternatively pay them damages in lieu of reinstatement. Appellant then appealed to this Court in terms of Section 92D of the Labour ActChapter 28:01 hereafter called the Act. Respondents opposed the appeal. More
On 9th December 2010 the NEC Banking made a determination. In terms thereof it upheld an earlier ruling in terms of which Appellant was ordered to reinstate Respondent’s employment. Appellant then appealed to this Court against the NEC’s determination More
This matter was set down for pre-trial conference initially for 21 June 2012 and the parties given notice to attend the conference. The defendants did not file their pre-trial conference minutes and summary of evidence as required by the rules. However, on 21 June 2012 Mr Marume appeared on behalf of the defendants and indicated that he had been unable to file the documents because the defendants had been unco-operative. In fact all the defendants were not in attendance on that date. More
