The applicant was employed by the first respondent as its Managing Director. The second to fourth respondent were colleagues and fellow employees of the first respondent, being the chief Executive Officer, Production Director and Human Resources Director respectively.
On 23 July, 2008, certain allegations of a criminal nature were made against the applicant by his colleagues. The applicant was taken by the police and whilst in custody, the respondents gained access to his computer and transferred therefrom a number of files and information onto their computers. This they did after “cracking” the applicant’s password and rendering it dysfunctional in the... More
This is an urgent chamber application wherein the applicants seek an order in the following terms:
“TERMS OF THE FINAL ORDER SOUGHT:
That you show cause to this Honourable Court why a final order should not be made in the following terms:
1. That the 1st to 3rdrespondents be and are hereby interdicted from asserting any rights in respect of Gazemba III, Registration no 25685 or any of applicants’’ mining claims unless they produce legal documents from the office of the 4threspondent or unless they are authorised by an order of a court of competent jurisdiction.
2. That the 1st... More
This is an appeal against the decision of the respondent’s Disciplinary Authority which dismissed the appellant from employment following allegations of misappropriating the respondent’ dipping fees. More
The applicant in this matter was married in terms of customary law to one Alice Mukowamombe in April 1986. In 2001 the applicant moved out of the matrimonial home and commenced to live with another woman as his wife. Alice Mukowamombe (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) died intestate on 11 June 2007. She was survived by three children two of whom she had More
This is an appeal against the whole judgment of the High Court (court a quo), sitting at Bulawayo which convicted the appellant of murder in contravention of s 47(1)(a) of the Criminal Law [Codification and Reform] Act [Chapter 9:23](the Code). Subsequent to the conviction, the appellant was sentenced to death. This is an automatic appeal against both the conviction and sentence in terms of s 44(2) (c) of the High Court Act [Chapter 7:06]. At the close of submissions, we dismissed the appeal and indicated that our reasons would be availed in due course. I set out hereunder the reasons... More
Facts of the case are that the Appellants joined the employ of Addis Neon and Teunion Signs in 1966. These companies were subsequently bought by the now Respondent Claude Neon. Upon the purchase Appellant and his colleague were among the employees who were engaged by Claude Neon and made to sign new contracts with Respondent. When they eventually reached retirement age they sought to have Claude pay them retirement benefits for the period they used to be in the employ of Addis and Teunion.
Respondent spurned that request arguing that such claims had to be met by to the company... More
The plaintiff claims against the defendants jointly and severally, the one paying the other to be absolved, payment of the sum of US$3 000. The basis for claiming the said amount is framed in the following terms: “being the amount the defendants undertook to pay Plaintiff for his participation and role in the HIV and AIDS documentary ‘Pain in My Heart’, which despite demand, the defendants have refused, neglected and /or failed to pay.” The plaintiff contends that the claim is based on a verbal agreement entered into between the parties in early 2007 in which agreement the second defendant... More
The first and second applicants have been embroiled in a dispute with the first respondent from as far back as 2019. At the center of their dispute is a piece of land which is known as Subdivision 2 of Erling Farm, Seke, Beatrice {‘the farm’}. On 1 October 2021, the dispute in which only the first respondent, on the one hand, and the first and the second applicants, on the other, were involved escalated itself to the third to twenty-fifth applicants whom the first respondent moved to evict from the farm together with the first and second applicants. He premised... More
Initially this matter came as an appeal. The accused was appealing against sentence in respect of count 2. However, we could not proceed to deal with it as an appeal because of the procedural irregularity that we then noted. We then dealt with it as a review in terms of s 26 of the High Court Act [Cap 7:06]. Consequently no submissions were then made by both the appellant and respondent in respect of the appeal against sentence. More
This is an appeal against the determination of the respondent’s Disciplinary Authority, which found the appellant guilty of misconduct and dismissed him from employment. More
1. This is an appeal against the whole judgment of the Magistrates Court in terms whereof the appellants were convicted of 3 counts of criminal abuse of duty as public officers as defined in s 174(1)(a) of the Criminal Law Code and, with all counts treated as one for the purposes of sentence, each appellant was sentenced to 36 months imprisonment of which 12 months imprisonment was suspended for 5 years on the usual conditions of good behaviour. More
This is a provisional sentence matter. Plaintiff issued provisional sentence summons against the defendant claiming provisional sentence in an amount of US$208 000,00, together interest at the prescribed rate from the date of acknowledgment of debt to the date of payment in full. More
Sometime before 20 July, 2012 the applicants and the first respondent were embroiled in a Labour dispute. The dispute centred on non-payment of salaries, or wages, which were due to the applicants and unfair dismissal of employees by the first respondent. More
This is a Court Application for dismissal of respondent’s action under case number HC 6448/18 made in terms of r 75(1) of the High Court Rules of 1971 coupled with a claim for a declaratory order on the ground that their claim is frivolous and vexatious. More
On the date of the hearing applicant raised a point in limine on the locus standi of second respondent and the fact that applicant had not been served personally with the application for contempt of court that led to the default judgment.
The second respondent’s counsel on the other hand also raised a point in limine alleging that as the applicant had not attached the default judgment in question, there was no cause of action.
After counsel had made their respective submissions I indicated that they must proceed with arguments on the main matter and my decision of the points... More
