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
This is an appeal against refusal of bail by the magistrate’s court.
Both appellants were arraigned before a magistrate sitting at Harare facing two counts of fraud as defined in s136 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act, [Chapter 9:23] and were denied bail pending trial. Dissatisfied with that decision, they now appeal to this court. More
This is an appeal against the whole judgment of the High Court, (court a quo), Harare, which was handed down on 19 May 2023. The court dismissed the appellant’s application for review on the basis, among others, that the appellant’s complaints to the respondents related to ecclesiastical governance and doctrine, a circumstance that removed from it the jurisdiction to hear the matter. More
This is a court application for review in terms of section 26 and 27 of the High Court Act Chapter 7:06 as read with Order 33 of the then High Court Rules 1971 in which, at this point of the judgment, the court is called upon to decide on a number of preliminary points. More
This is an application for the upliftment of the bar operating against the applicant in HC 5817/15. The events leading up to the present application are set out in the founding affidavit filed on behalf of the applicant sworn to by Raymond Maxime Smithlock who deposed as follows: More
This is an opposed application wherein the applicant seeks the confirmation of a provisional order which was granted by MABHIKWA J on 7th November 2018. More
This is an opposed application for condonation and extension of time within which to note an appeal. The application is brought in terms of r 43 of the Supreme Court Rules 2018. More
The respondent, as the plaintiff, issued summons against the four excipients, as the defendants. The precise relief which the respondent seeks is set out in the summons as follows:
“(a) An order declaring that he is a 30% shareholder of DMC Holdings (Private) Limited (1st Defendant) and consequently has an interest in Christmas Gift (Private) Limited (2nd Defendant) and in the land held by 2nd Defendant being the Remainder of Christmas Gift held under Deed of Transfer No. 820/51 and Deed of Transfer No. 2681/13.
(b) An order declaring that because of his interest in 2nd Defendant and the land... More
This is an application for the review of a decision to retrench approved by the 1st respondent on the 30th of May 2005, in terms of section 12C of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01]. The grounds for review are that the 1st respondent approved the retrenchment of the applicants by the 2nd respondent, firstly, while the question as to who could lawfully retrench the applicants was sub judice, secondly, without having heard the applicants on the merits of the matter and, thirdly, by failing to incorporate the issue of motor vehicles in the terms of retrenchment. More
The applicant in this matter claims the sum of US$40,000 in terms of a loan agreement concluded with the respondent on 31 August 2010. The respondent was to repay the amount lent by way of four instalments of US$10,000 from September to December 2010. He has failed to do so despite several demands. The applicant seeks repayment of the full amount together with interest, collection commission and costs on a higher scale. More
The 2nd and 3rd applicants are registered legal practitioners who practice in partnership under the name Antonio & Dzvetero Legal Practitioners. This is an application brought in terms of section 27 (1) of the High Court Act [Chapter 7:06], as read with Order 33 of the High Court Rules, 1971 (the previous Rules), and the common law. In addition, the application relied on section 14 of the High Court Act, the Administrative Justice Act [Chapter 10:28], and the Constitution of Zimbabwe. The applicants cited the Executive Secretary of the Law Society in his official capacity as the official, vested by... More
The brief facts of this matter are that appellant was employed as a tyre fitter. On 30 March 2015 he was found working on a vehicle tightening the tyres with a wrench. He had been forbidden to use the wrench on the nuts. Appellant then appeared before a disciplinary committee charged with contravening Part III of the Unifreight Code of Conduct and Grievance Procedure Part 3, 3.5 i.e. More
