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
This is an application for the setting aside of irregular proceedings in terms of s 43(1) of the High Court Rules, 2021. The applicant is the plaintiff whilst the first to the fourth respondents (hereinafter called the respondents) are the first to fourth defendants in the main cause between the parties in HC 5524/2021. In that matter, the respondents in response to the applicant’s summons filed an exception, a special plea and a plea to the merits all at once. It is the applicant’s averment that the respondents failed to comply with the peremptory provisions of rule 43(2) and rule... More
The appellant was convicted, after contest, of contravening s 113 (1) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23] (the Code). It had been alleged that on 24 July 2018 and at the corner of Visage and Princess Park, Pretoria, South Africa, the appellant stole a motor vehicle, a Chevrolet Trailblazer, belonging to one Lazarus Chitsungo. He was sentenced to 6 years imprisonment of which 8 months were suspended on condition of future good behaviour. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence he appealed against both. More
This is an exception by the second defendant to summons issued out of this court by the plaintiff on 2 May 2018 against the defendants.
In the summons the plaintiff alleged that sometime in 2014 on the instructions of the second defendant, an auction was conducted by auctioneers Hammer and Tongues in respect of an immovable property stand 783 Bannockburn Township . Plaintiff’s bid won and he paid US$36 500.00. The sale was confirmed and he deposited the transfer fees with the conveyancers. In due course, however he was advised by the conveyancers that the sale had been rescinded and... More
This application was placed before me as one for summary judgment in terms of R30 of the High Court Rules, 2021. On the 13th of October 2022 after hearing the parties, I gave judgment ex tempore. I have been requested for reasons and these are they. Although there is reference to applicant and respondents, in my view, the correct reference is plaintiff and defendant given that it is an application for summary judgment. More
This is an appeal in terms of Rule 19 of the Labour Court Rules, 2017. The appeal was noted as against the determination of the Respondent’s Disciplinary Committee handed down on 14thApril, 2023. More
This is an appeal against an arbitral award.
The respondent was employed as a cook by appellant from January 2005 to 30 January 2015, when he retired More
I must acknowledge the inordinate delay in rendering this judgment. The delay was due to misfiling of records by the judge’s legal clerk. Indeed by letter dated 27 September 2017, the applicant’s legal practitioners wrote a letter to follow-up on the judgment. More
