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
This is an appeal against the judgment of MUSAKWA J. After hearing submissions by counsel and considering the matter, the appeal was dismissed and the Court issued the following order:
“1. The appeal be and is hereby dismissed in its entirety.
2. There will be no order as to costs.”
The Court indicated that reasons for judgment would follow. The file in this matter, together with a number of other similar files where judgment had been given with reasons to follow, was inadvertently filed with the completed matters. This accounts for the delay in handing down the following reasons for... More
The applicants approached the court seeking for rescission of judgment in terms of order 49 rule 449 (1) of the High Court Rules, 1971. The issue that falls for determination is whether or not the judgment sought to be rescinded was erroneously granted. More
An application for default judgment under Order 9 Rule 57 of the High Court Rules, 1971 does not ordinarily prompt a written judgment. The nature of the relief sought, for which Rule 57 is invoked is such that a Judge should not over ruminate on whether or not the claim is one for a debt or liquidated demand. It must appear ex facie the summons, declaration with any supporting documents that it is a claim for a debt or liquidated demand. The extraordinary circumstances of this matter have impelled me to render a judgment nevertheless. The plaintiff is a law... More
This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Zimbabwe ordering the return of all the goods belonging to the first and second respondent attached pursuant to a default judgment granted earlier by the same court against the second respondent. The judgment appealed against also ordered that the returned goods remain under judicial attachment until the finalisation of the proceedings between the parties. More
This is an urgent chamber application for a spoliation order. At the hearing, the applicant applied for an amendment to the order sought in its draft order which was granted. Having struck out the interim relief, the terms of the final order sought are now as follows;
“The application for spoliation be and is hereby granted. The status quo ante before the spoliation is restored and the 1st respondent and anyone acting, through them be and is hereby ordered to remove its fence over and to vacate the mining claim described as Mutaki, 10 Hectares Block, Goromonzi under Certificate of... More
Respondent was in the employ of Appellant, a firm of legal practitioners. Following the termination of her contract, Respondent approached the Ministry of Labour Offices. Attempts at conciliation failed and the matter was referred to arbitration. The arbitrator found in favour of Respondent. Appellant is not satisfied with this award and has appealed to this Court. More
