1. This is an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court in terms of s 44(4) of the High Court Act [Chapter 7:06] as read with Rule 94 of the High Court Rules, 2021.
2. Sitting together with MANYANGADZE J, we dismissed the applicant’s appeal against conviction and sentence More
The brief background to the matter is that the Appellant was employed by Respondent, and was at the material time working in the Delicatessen Department. In November 2009, she was convicted of misconduct in terms of the National Employment Council for the Commercial Sectors Employment Code of Conduct (NEC Code). The Disciplinary Committee found her guilty of the Group IV Offence of “DISHONESTY AND RELATED OFFENCES”- which is the unlawful taking of property with the intention of permanently depriving the company of such property. The Appellant was found by the Duty Manager eating potatoes in a kitchen, outside the normal... More
The accused was facing a charge of murder in terms of s 47 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23] it being alleged that on 6 March, 2009 and at Village 22, Nyamatani, Chief Neuso Sanyati Petros Lozane unlawfully and with intent to kill caused the death of Joseph Lozane by striking him with an axe on the head once and twice on the back causing injuries from which Joseph Lozane died. More
This is a review referred to the High Court in terms of Order 32 r 5 (3) as read with r 5 (5) of the Magistrates Court (Civil) Rules 1980. According to the magistrate the issue for determination is presented as follows - When a magistrate has granted costs on an attorney-client scale, is the taxing officer allowed to use tariffs as provided in General Tariff of fees for Legal Practitioners 2011 which allows for higher remuneration in comparison to party and party scale or whether and when is the General Tariff of Fees for Legal Practitioners 2011 applicable to... More
Applicant applied for leave to appeal this Court’s judgement referenced LCH 180/24 to the Supreme Court. The application was made in terms of section 92F (2) of the Labour Act Chapter 28:01 as read with Rule 43 of the Labour Court Rules, 2017. Respondent opposed the application. More
Respondent was employed by the Appellant as a Bar Assistant/Assistant Cashier. It is alleged that Appellant verbally dismissed her resulting in the matter being referred to conciliation. Conciliation failed and the matter was referred to arbitration. The Arbitrator found in favour of the Respondent. The Appellant is not satisfied and has appealed to this Court. More
This is an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. This Court on 25 November 2015 made an order dismissing the applicant’s appeal. The applicant noted an application for leave to appeal within the requisite thirty day period but that was done beforethe reasons for the judgmentwere handed down. More
This is an application in terms of rule 19(3) a of the Labour Court Rules 2006 for the dismissal of the Respondent’s appeal on the basis that he failed to file his heads of argument within the time limits prescribed by the rules.
The brief facts of the case are that the Respondent was dismissed by the Applicant on the basis of failing to obey lawful orders in contravention of the Applicant’s code of conduct. Aggrieved by his dismissal, he appealed to the Labour Court on the 20th July 2012. More
This is a determination of a point in limine which was initially dismissed by this court.It is being determined for the second time following an order of the Supreme Court.It is therefore necessary to go through the various stages leading to the present position.The present determination is done on the basis of the papers as agreed to by the parties. More
Applicant has filed an Urgent Chamber Application for contempt of Court in terms of Rule 35 of the Labour Court Rules.
This Honourable Court made a judgment under Case No. LC/H/484/12 and ordered Respondent to hear Appellant’s appeal. More
This trial is concerned with the identification of the correct house between two of the three houses that are eligible to ascend to the Nyajina Chieftainship of the vaZumba clan in the Uzumba Maramba Pfungwe district of Mashonaland East province of Zimbabwe. More
This is an opposed application in which the applicant seeks the following order:
“1. The notice of withdrawal filed by the respondent in matter number HC 1856/18 is an irregular step in litigation and is ipso facto set aside.
2. The notice of withdrawal filed by the respondent in matter number HC 1783/18 is an irregular step in litigation and is ipso facto set aside
3. The respondent shall pay costs of suit on an attorney and client scale”. More
1. This is an application for review of the second respondent’s decision refusing to discharge the applicant at the close of the case for the prosecution. The applicant, a former Vice President of the Republic of Zimbabwe, is appearing before the first respondent (a Regional Magistrate) sitting as a Designated Anti- Corruption Court at Harare on trial on the main charge of criminal abuse of duty as a public officer and the alternative charge of defeating or obstructing the course of justice as defined, respectively, in ss 174(1)(a) and 184(1)(e) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23]... More
On the return date to determine the fate of a provisional order, first to fifth respondents applied for excision from the record, of certain portions of the applicants` answering affidavit. These relate in the main, to the sale and transfer of certain property between a third party and second respondent in circumstances further described below. The provisional order had been obtained ex parte in this court on 6 May 2022. The ex parte application had in turn, been brought an urgent basis as an exercise of derivative rights in terms of section 61 of the Companies and Other Businesses Act... More
The history of the matter has to be put into perspective. The appellant is cited in his official capacity as a liquidator of the first respondent. The first respondent is a 50 percent shareholder in the company, which is under final liquidation. The second respondent holds the other 50 percent share in the Company. The appellant was appointed interim liquidator of the company on 5 June 2019. On 7 August 2019, he was appointed the final liquidator. More
