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
This is an application for the dismissal of an action made in terms of Rule 31 of the High Court Rules, 2021, Statutory Instrument 202 of 2021, (the Rules). Brighton Vimbainashe Shereni (Shereni) deposed to the founding affidavit. He is the applicant’s Recoveries Manager. More
The applicant makes an application for a refund of $63 115-55 which the applicant avers it paid under protest in pursuant to an order of court granted in favour of the respondent. More
The plaintiff, a commercial bank, claims against the three defendants payment of a sum of money amounting to US$1 105 748.90 together with interest thereon at the rate of 15% per annum calculated from the 9th September 2015 to the date of payment in full, such interest to be calculated monthly and in advance and capitalized. The plaintiff also claims collection commission and costs of suit on the legal practitioner and client scale, as well as an order declaring a certain immovable property described in the summons as a certain piece of land situate in the District of Salisbury called... More
This is an application for summary judgement. The facts are that the applicant lent and advanced some money to Coldrac Products (Pvt) Limited in the sum of $1 500 000.00 and one David Govere stood as surety and co-principal debtor. Coldrac Products (Pvt) Limited failed to service the debt leading to the bank obtaining judgment against it. More
This is an application for summary judgment. The applicant seeks the following relief:
“IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1. Summary judgment in the sum of US$101 677-93 be and is hereby granted in favour of the applicant and against the respondents.
2. The mortgaged property being certain piece of land situate in the District of Salisbury called Stand 932 Bluffhill Township 17 of Subdivision C of Bluffhill measuring 4000 square metres held by the second respondent under Deed of Transfer No. 4936/2007 dated 18 September 2007 be and is hereby declared specially executable to satisfy the applicant’s claim.” More
