This matter was originally set to be heard on 01 April 2020. Due to the onslaught of the CORONAVIRUS pandemic, the Chief Justice issued an instruction to the effect that courts would only deal with very urgent matters and the rest had to be postponed. This was in order to avoid unnecessary contaminations and curb infections. On the date of the hearing, applicants’ legal practitioners were contacted telephonically and informed of the position. It was also suggested to them that,
with their consent, the matter could be determined on the merits if they were satisfied that the documents they had... More
Please take note that the order handed down on the 10th of November, 2023 under reference LC/H/ORD/878/23 carries the following errors and omissions;
i. The Applicant was not in default but rather the Respondent was the one who was in default therefore the representative for the Applicant shall be amended from “in default” to “Mr S. Mwandiwanza.” (Legal Practitioner)
ii. The legal practitioner’s name who appeared for the Applicant on 1 November (the date of the hearing) was misspelt as “Mr.S Mwandiwanzira” it is corrected to read as ‘Mr.S.Mwandiwanza’. More
At the hearing of this matter we gave an ex tempore judgment and dismissed the appeal against both conviction and sentence. We have been requested to furnish written reasons for our decision for purposes of appeal to the Supreme Court. The following were our reasons. More
Applicant applied to this Court for the rescission of default judgment in terms of section 92(1)a of the Labour Act Chapter 28:01 as read with Rule 40 of the Labour Court Rules S.I. 150/17. Respondents opposed the application. More
This is an appeal against an arbitral award handed down on 15 May 2015, in terms of which it was ruled that the appellant’s contract of employment was lawfully terminated, as she had reached the retirement age of sixty years. More
This is an appeal against the respondents’ decision to dismiss the appellant. At the commencement of the hearing Ms Ndoro who appeared on behalf of the appellant indicated that in noting the appeal they relied on S92EE of the Labour Act, Chapter 28:01(the Act). Upon inquiry from the Court why they relied on S92EE of the Act when an appeal was under consideration it was stated that, that stance was adopted because the proceedings were tainted with bias. In addressing the Court both grounds for review and appeal were interchangeably referred to. Indeed paragraph 6 of the Heads of Argument... More
This is an application for condonation of late noting of appeal and extension of time within which to appeal. The application is brought in terms of r 43 (3) of the Supreme Court Rules 2018. The application is opposed. More
This is an application for condonation of the late noting of an appeal. The Applicant wishes to appeal against a determination made by the Public Service Commission – 2nd Respondent on 12 January 2011 turning down his application for review of the decision made by 1st Respondent. More
The plaintiff in this matter claims from the defendant the sum of
US$64 544.45 (Sixty four thousand five hundred and forty four dollars and forty-five dollars) being damages arising from a road traffic accident between his commuter omnibus and a late motor cyclist formerly employed by the defendant which he blames on the deceased employee of the defendant, interest at the prescribed rate from date of summons to the date of full and final payment of the judgment debt and costs of suit on a legal practitioner –client scale. More
The appellant was arraigned before the magistrate at Chipinge on a charge of culpable homicide. He pleaded not guilty but was convicted after a trial. He was sentenced to 18 months imprisonment of which 6 months was suspended for 5 years on condition of future good conduct. In addition, the appellant was prohibited from driving any class of motor vehicle for the next 6 months More
The respondent was employed by the Appellant as a Security Guard. She was dismissed from Appellant employment after being found guilty on a charge of absenteeism it being the Appellant’s allegation that Respondent had gone on leave without authority or clearance from Management. The Respondent appealed initially to the Mashonaland Local Joint Committee. That committee then ordered reinstatement without loss of salary and benefits. The Appellant appealed against the decision of the Local Joint committee to the Negotiating Committee. More
The brief history of this matter is that the appellant a Pension’s Assistant of the Public Service Commission appeared before disciplinary authority in February and March 2015. He was charged with misconduct in terms of section 43 (a)(b) of SI 162 of 2007 as read with paragraphs 8 and 13 (d) of the 3rd Schedule (section 14) of the same regulations on allegations that:
“Paragraph 8
Making improper or unauthorised used of Commission property”. More
This matter is a civil action wherein the parties drew up a statement of agreed facts at the Pre-Trial Conference stage such that it became a stated case. All the facts are therefore common cause. It is the applicable law that is contentious. The brief background of the case is that sometime in 2014, plaintiff, which is a company incorporated in Germany, sold seven buses to the defendant which is a local company and such buses were delivered to the defendant as agreed. The purchase price for each bus was agreed at US$84 143, 28. It is agreed that the... More
Applicant is the second wife of the late Sheunesu Mpepereki (the deceased). First respondent is his daughter. First respondent’s mother was the deceased’s first wife. The deceased left a will in terms of which first respondent was appointed the executrix testamentary. Under the will, the deceased directed that his only immovable property, number 22 Dulverton Drive, Glen Lorne, (the immovable property) be sold and that from the proceeds realized, $50 000.00 be given to the applicant. The balance of the estate was bequeathed to first respondent.
The will was submitted to second respondent and in recognition of it, second respondent... More
This urgent chamber application was initially set down for the 10th of October and I heard the parties on the points in limine, reserved my ruling and thereafter dismissed the points raised with a notification that reasons would follow. I give my very brief reasons for dismissing the points in limine.
Points In Limine
The first point raised is that this matter is not urgent as the sale was concluded in January 2022 and nothing was done to challenge the sale even in June 2022 when applicant’s counsel represented the tenants when they were evicted. Such proceedings are said to... More
