This is an application for the rescission of a judgement made by this court reinstating the respondent employer into his position in a labour dispute pitting him and the applicant employer. More
This mater was set down as an appeal by the appellant employee against the respondent employer following disciplinary proceedings whose outcome was unfavourable to the appellant. On the set down date and in the papers filed of record the respondent raised two points at the outset. It is these two points which are the subject matter of this judgment.
The respondent took the first point that the notice of appeal was defective of an account of the fact that it was silent on the prayer sought by the appellant. It also took issue with the fact that the appeal grounds... More
In this opposed application the applicant has sued respondent for an order of ejectment of the respondent and all those claiming occupation through respondent occupation from applicant’s commercial premises at Chedgelow Farm and holding over damages in the sum of $600.00 per month with effect from the 1st July 2016 to date of vacation or ejectment. The following facts are common cause between the parties. More
On the 24th of July, 2024 this court handed down an order dismissing the application for review filed in this matter. It was indicated that the reasons would follow. The following constitute the reasons for the judgement rendered. The delay in hand down of the determination is sincerely regretted. The matter was placed before me as an application for review filed in terms of Section 92EE (1)(b) and (c) of the Labour Act [Chap 28:01] The application for review was noted as against the disciplinary proceedings conducted before the Respondent’s Disciplinary Committee which proceedings culminated in a dismissal penalty imposed... More
This is an appeal against conviction and sentence. The appellant, charged with the crime of theft as defined in s 113 (1) (a) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23] was, following a protracted trial, convicted of stealing a 500 kva transformer serial number T9294LC14 belonging to the Zimbabwe Electricity Transmission and Distribution Company (ZETDC). The offence was committed on 4 July 2013 at the ZETDC Mabelreign Depot, Mabelreign Shopping Centre, Harare. For his troubles, the appellant was sentenced to twenty-four months imprisonment of which six months imprisonment was suspended for five years on the usual conditions... More
The dispute in this matter relates to the flighting of a tender by the first defendant for the supply and delivery of 70 kms of 24 core CST armoured cable. The plaintiff in its summons and declaration contends that this tender was flighted on or about the 31st of May 2023 through an email request for quotation. The first defendant communicated on the 13th of July 2023 that the plaintiff was successful in its bid. It directed the plaintiff to pay the sum of USD$2443 to the second defendant to enable release of the contract documents. Despite payment of this... More
This is an application for suspension of the sale in execution of stand number 1898 Marlborough Township 23 of Marlborough following a judgment that was granted in favour of the first respondent. The property is owned by the applicant. More
This application has its roots in a matrimonial dispute between the applicant and respondent. The background is as follows: - On the 15th of June 2018, MUSHORE J gave an order in HC 4882/18 in which the respondent was interdicted from taking away, removing and or in any way disposing of any of the assets held under the family companies and family trust listed on the confirmed interim relief pending finalisation of divorce proceedings in case no HC 5020/18. The order also compelled the respondent to return forthwith certain assets as specified and to also prohibit the respondent from removing... More
On 29 June 2015 arbitrator P Chirongoma issued an arbitration award. In terms thereof he ordered appellant to pay respondent a sum of $1 514.00 in respect of notice pay, cash in lieu of leave and underpayment of wages. Appellant then appealed to this court against the award. Respondent opposed the appeal. More
The applicants are importunate. They want back their money – $142 000 – all in the currency of the United States dollars [USD]. If the first respondent, their banker, will not pay, then the second and third respondents, collectively the monetary authorities, should. The applicants allege these monetary authorities are partly the reason the first respondent will not pay. The applicants want a whole range of some financial legislation, and certain monetary policies or directives, set aside on the grounds of constitutional invalidity. They first came to this court in 2019. The subject matter was the same. This court ruled... More
This is an urgent chamber application, filed on a certificate of urgency, for leave to execute an order of this Honourable Court pending the determination of an appeal noted by the first and second respondents against the judgment by the HONOURABLEJUSTICEKWENDA handed down on 16 September 2021 under judgment number HH505-21.
The background facts are that the applicant filed an urgent chamber application for an interdict under case number HC 3589/21. The application was struck off the roll because the relief sought by the applicant in the interim and final orders was found to be the same. More
This is a chamber application for a provisional order, wherein the applicant seeks a temporary interdict restraining the 1st to 6th respondents from infringing upon its property rights. Reference to the respondents in this judgment will exclude the 7th and 8th respondent because the 8th respondent is an officer of this court mandated to execute its judgments who has no interest in the outcome of the matter and there is no order sought against the 8th respondent. More
The applicant filed the above application on 9 October 2002, seeking an order restraining the respondents from interfering in the applicant’s relationship with its staff and specifically barring the respondents from representing the interest of its staff in matters affecting conditions of service of its staff. The application was opposed. More
The applicant (“POSB”) prays for an order in the following terms; -
i) “Condonation of the late filing of an application for rescission of a default judgment entered into on 27 January 2023 under HCHC 485/22 (“application for condonation”); and
ii) The rescission of the said default judgment under HCHC 485/22 (“application for rescission”). More
