On 22 January 2021 seeking the following provisional order:
“TERMS OF THE ORDER SOUGHT
That the respondents show cause why a final order should not be made in the following terms;
1. That the provisional order be and is hereby confirmed.
2. That the use of excessive force and assaulting applicant or any member of the public during enforcement of Covid-19 lockdown regulations by the respondents be and is hereby declared unconstitutional.
3. That the failure by the respondents to observe social distancing, sanitizing suspects before putting them in police holding cells, putting applicant or anyone in overcrowded holding cells... More
This is an application for the condonation of late noting of a review application. Applicant claims that he failed to file his review timeously because he had erroneously filed his review a day out of time but had not sought condonation thus resulting in the striking off of his matter. He also states that there were technical glitches that beset his filing the review on time when he filed his appeal on time. He says further delays were occasioned by the respondent’s failure to give him the full record of proceedings on time. He also cites lack of funds as... More
This is an application for leave to appeal against my judgment to the Supreme Court.
In that judgment, I found that the applicant who had been absent from work from 14 January 2009 to 23 February 2009 had been absent without leave and reasonable excuse. More
1. This is an application for bail pending trial. The applicants is charged with the crime of robbery as defined in section 126 (1) of the Criminal Law [Codification and Reform] Act [Chapter 9:23]. It being alleged that on 4 October 2022 at about 0600 hours, the applicant and accomplices some already accounted for and others still at large hatched a plan to rob a security company which transports gold from How Mine to Fidelity Printers. They were armed with rifles and pistols, forced the security guards out of the vehicles, disarmed them and forced them to lie down. Thereafter... More
For contravening Section 3.3.4(a) of Respondent’s Code of conduct i.e. reporting for duty whilst under the influence of alcohol as a result of which damage worth $5 600,00 was caused to Respondent’s motor vehicle, Appellant was arraigned before a Disciplinary Committee. He pleaded guilty to the charge and was dismissed from employment. More
This is an application for confirmation of the ruling by Designated Agent Madzure that was made on 30 August 2019.
The brief facts of the matter are that the 2nd Respondent was dismissed from employment on charges of theft. He had been employed as a driver. He was suspended from duty with effect from 28 November 2017. The amount involved was $19 791-67. Respondent then send a registered mail inviting the claimant for hearing on 29 November 2017. This was seven days before the scheduled date of 7 December 2017. More
The appellant was convicted of one count of theft as defined in s 113 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act, [Cap 9:23] on his own plea of guilty on 8 July 2008. He was sentenced to 36 months imprisonment of which 6 months was suspended on condition of good behaviour. A further 6 months were suspended on condition that the appellant makes restitution in the sum of ZW$5,5 trillion by 31 December 2008 leaving an effective sentence of 24 months upon his compliance with the stated conditions. He appealed against both conviction and sentence. More
This matter, which has at times splintered into various cases, originates from a very simple issue but has dragged for six (6) long years. The brief history of the matter is as follows;
Applicant states that he entered into a lease agreement with 1st respondent and became his tenant at No. 13 Nesbit, Redcliff, Kwekwe on 1 June 2013. No written agreement has been exhibited. Applicant also does not explain throughout, whether the said lease agreement was written or verbal. Applicant further states that on 14 February 2014, 1st respondent “gave him a right of first refusal” should he decide... More
This is an application to declare invalid the proceedings instituted by the 1st to 8th Respondents undercover of case number HC 1057/19 and the order obtained in default on the 23rd July 2019, unlawful and illegal. Consequently relief is sought to the effect that the 2nd Applicant be reinstated on the property called Munjungwe Conservancy. More
This matter was set down before me in Motion Court on 12 March 2020. It is a court application for a declaratur. I ruled and ordered the following that;
1) The matter is opposed
2) The matter be removed from the roll of unopposed matters.
3) There be no order as to costs.
Belatedly on 7 October 2020, I received a letter which had been erroneously filed in one of the many cases involving the parties and /or some of the parties in case No. HC 1375/20 being the case of Josphat Kudumba & 7 Others v Apatron Mining (Pvt)... More
This is an application that has been brought before this Court in terms of s 85 (1) (a) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (No. 20) Act, 2013 (“the Constitution”). More
After hearing submissions from counsel representing the applicant and second respondent I dismissed the urgent chamber application in casu with costs. I gave brief reasons. I did indicate that my written reasons could be furnished upon request.The applicant through its legal practitioners has requested to be furnished with the written reasons. These are the reasons. More
In the plaintiff’s declaration, plaintiff is an Apostolic Ejuwell Jekenisheni Church, a religious and Christian Church. 1st defendant is The International Apostolic Ejuwell Jekenisheni Church, plaintiff describes 1st defendant as an off-shoot of the plaintiff. 2nd to 5th defendants are the church leaders of 1st defendant. 6th and 7th defendants were cited in their official capacities. Sometime in 2013 Bishop Elijah Dzingai Nyikambaranda formed 1st defendant constituted by 2nd-5th defendants as its co-leaders. 1st-5th defendants registered its own constitution and from the date of 1st defendant’s formation in 2013, plaintiff and 1st defendant existed as two distinct entities. More
The applicant Apostolic Faith Mission in Zimbabwe a church congregation pleading through a founding affidavit deposed to by one Amon Dubie Madawo who styled himself as the applicant’s elected president and also stated that the applicant is a common law universitas with power to sue and to be sued. The deponent president further deposed that the applicant was constituted in terms of a written constitution and regulations which inscribed its foundational values, confession of faith mission and governance structures. The applicant did not attach a copy of its written constitution and regulations and did not do so in the answering... More
DUBE-BANDA J: This is an urgent application. This application was lodged in this court on 4th June 2021. It was placed before me and I directed that it be served on the respondents together with a notice of set down for 9th of June 2021. On the set down date, counsel for the applicant requested for a postponement to enable the fling of an answering affidavit. The postponement was granted and the matter was subsequently argued on 14th June 2021. More
