The plaintiff is the owner of certain business premises at Chisipite Shopping Centre called Lot 11 Chisipte Township Hindhead Avenue, Chisipte. In terms of a written agreement, the plaintiff leased the premises to Décor and Design in or about 1996. In March 1998, Décor and Design ceded its rights and obligations under the lease to the defendant. More
The applicants were arraigned before a magistrate sitting at Kezi on a charge of stock theft as defined in section 114 (2) (a) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act (Chapter 9:28). Applicants pleaded not guilty to the charge but were convicted at the conclusion of a full trial. On 27th October 2022 applicants filed a notice of appeal against both conviction and sentence. The applicants now seek their release from custody pending the hearing of their appeal. The application is opposed by the state. More
In this matter plaintiff issued summons claiming the following:An order for the payment of the sum of $25000-00 by the defendant to the plaintiff the same being in respect of monies loaned and advanced to defendant by plaintiff at defendant’s specific request and instance on or about the 23rd of July 2015, which amounts despite lawful dead, defendant has failed and neglected to pay.
2) An order that defendant pays interest at the prescribed rate on the sum of $25000 calculated from 23 July 2015 to date of full payment.
3) An order that defendant’s motor vehicle a Mercedes Benz... More
The second respondent, Monica Gondo, had entered into an agreement of sale with the applicant’s former husband when there was no valid subdivisional permit at the time the sale was concluded. Accordingly, the subsequent transfer to the second respondent was defective, fatally so. The applicant challenged the validity of that sale through an application for cancellation of title made before the High Court. The high Court, according to the applicant, erroneously found that the matter was “res judicata” and upheld the second respondent’s preliminary objection on that ground. The second respondent, through her legal practitioners, founded part of the basis... More
This is an application for condonation of late filing of an application for rescission of a default judgment and upliftment of an automatic bar operating against applicant. More
Applicant was married to the second respondent from 1986 to 2012.A divorce order was granted in 2012 which resulted in the applicant being granted a certain immovable property StandNo.13687 Harare Township. The applicant approached this court in a separate application seeking an application for declarator that was granted in her favor by my brother Judge MSITHU J. The first respondent in this matter then noted an appeal in the Supreme Court against MSITHU J’s judgement.The appeal was successful thereby setting aside MSITHU J’s judgement in HC3715/19.
The first respondent has now raised special plea of res judicata in the present... More
The plaintiff claims from the defendants jointly and severally the one paying the other to be absolved, the sum of US$98 239-64. The plaintiff claims that during the period extending from 20 August 2009 to 30 September 2010, it sold and delivered goods worth US$98 239-64 to the first defendant. It claims that on 11 August 2010 the second defendant bound itself jointly and severally as a surety in solidum and co-principal debtor with the first defendant to repay, on demand by the plaintiff, all sums of money that were outstanding as at that date or became due and payable... More
On the 19th July 2017 after hearing submissions by the parties I granted the application. The reasons for my decision were as follows:
The applicants approached this court on a certificate of urgency seeking the stay of execution of a provisional order the first respondent obtained in circumstances applicants described as improper. More
This was an application for rescission of a default judgment in terms of rule 449 (1) (a) of the High Court Rules, 1971. On 7 September 2018 I heard the matter and delivered an ex tempore judgment. I have now been asked for the written reasons and these are they.
The facts of the matter were as follows. The respondent filed an urgent chamber application under HC 4239/17on 12 May 2017. On the very day the respondent served the application on the applicants who then engaged their lawyers. Upon getting instructions the applicants’ lawyers wrote to the respondent’s lawyers on... More
The second and third applicants are shareholders of the first applicant, a company duly incorporated in terms of the laws of Zimbabwe. The second applicant is also the Managing Director of the first applicant. The first respondent is a company duly incorporated in terms of the laws of Zimbabwe. The second respondent is a company duly incorporated in Mauritius. The third respondent is a company duly incorporated in terms of the laws of Zimbabwe. More
This is an application for condonation for late noting of appeal. It is opposed.
I must express from the outset, my concern with the perception some litigants may have of the rules of the Labour Court Statutory Instrument 150/2017(the Rules) and how they are applied. I say this in view of the present matter and how it was presented. It is trite that this Court exercises equitable jurisdiction in dealing with matters which are brought before it.
However, this is always done within the confines of both the rules of the Court and the Labour Act Chapter 28:01 ( the... More
On 28 October 2016 after hearing the applicant and counsel I granted an order in favour of the applicant herein. On 31 October 2016 a letter by the first respondent’s Counsel addressed to the Registrar requesting written reasons for my decision was placed before me. More
The Respondent was employed by the Appellant as a shift leader and maintenance for a period of more than five years. His duties were to take care of repairs and maintenance of factory machines which included extruders, expellers, grinding mills and other machines. It is alleged that on 26 September 2012 he switched off extruder number 1 and increased the speed of extruder number 2. The increased speed caused extruder 2 to be congested resulting in production stoppage. The stoppage caused a production loss of $1 487. Respondent was charged in terms of section 4 of SI 15 of 2006.... More
Applicant is seeking rescission of a judgment by Consent in terms of 49 r 449 (1) (c) which provides as follows:
“449 Correction, variation and rescission of judgment and orders.
(1) The court or a judge may, in addition to any power it or he may have, mero motu, or upon the application of any party affected, correct, rescind or vary any judgment or order-
(a) ………………..
(b)
(c) that was granted as a result of a mistake common to the parties” More
