This is application for summary judgment. Applicant issued summons against respondent in which he is claiming the following relief-
1. Cancellation of lease agreement between the parties in respect of the property known as number 37 Hillview Road, Philadelphia, Harare.
2. Ejectment of respondent from number 37 Hillview Road, Philadelphia, Harare.
3. Payment of arrear rentals accrued from February 2009 to July 2010.
4. An order for payment of holding over damages at US$750.00 per month.
5. Costs of suit. More
The plaintiff owns premises which are being rented by the defendant. The plaintiff is a company dully incorporated in terms of the laws of Zimbabwe. Its shareholding has changed by virtue of its majority shareholders selling their shares to Regimos Paints the current majority shareholder. More
Respondent was in the employ of the appellant. The employment relationship was terminated by retrenchment. The appellant decided to pay overtime wages due to respondent from the year 2009 to 2012. Appellant declined to pay overtime wages for the period 2005 to 2008. This resulted in the matter being referred to arbitration. More
On 15 February 2021 the Provincial Mining Director for Manicaland, acting on behalf of the Secretary for Mines and Mining Development indicated to cancellation of applicant’s certificates of registrations under G5383; G5384; G5386 and G5387 within 30 days after the receipt of the letter. The basis of the cancellations was that applicant had pegged and lodged its applications for registration on an area which was no longer open to pegging and prospecting since the area had already been pegged prior by respondent. Respondent had lodged its applications on 5 February 2019 and certificates issued. Applicant lodged its papers on 24... More
The applicant in this matter seeks as against the respondents an order as follows:-
“1. That the 1st, 2nd and 3rd respondents be and are hereby directed to release a sum of USD58 000 belonging to applicants within 24 hours of service of this order upon them.2. That 1st, 2nd and 3rd respondents be and are hereby directed to pay costs of suit on an attorney and client scale jointly and severally with one paying and the other to be absolved.”
The background of this matter per applicant’s version is that applicant and 4th respondent entered into an agreement wherein... More
The applicant is a company duly incorporated in terms of the Companies and Other Businesses Act [Chapter 24:31]. The first respondent is an administrative authority responsible for the collection of taxes and is established in terms of the Revenue Authority Act [Chapter 23:11] (“the Revenue Authority Act”). The applicant was placed under corporate rescue in terms of the Insolvency Act [Chapter 6:07] and as a consequence, its affairs fall entirely under the administration of a Corporate Rescue Practitioner (CRP). More
Respondent introduced a fourth shift at the workplace and this led to different interpretations of the relevant Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) governing Respondent’s subsidiary. The matter was brought before the Works Council which ruled against the employees. The employees are dissatisfied and have approached the Court for relief. More
This is an appeal against an arbitral award.
The respondents were employed by the appellant in various capacities and claimed that as at 7 May 2014, they were owed salary arrears running from November 2010 to December 2013. They then approached the National Employment Printing’s designated agent for conciliation. Failing this, the matter was referred to arbitration.
The terms of reference for arbitration were;
1. To determine the quantum of outstanding salaries due to the claimants; and;
2. Determine when the amounts should be paid.
In defence against the claim, the appellant contended that there was no basis for the... More
I was assigned from the Supreme Court to the High Court specifically to hear this matter.
The trial was conducted over a period of two days, at the end of which it was agreed between the parties that the parties would prepare their written submissions and submit them by certain specified dates. The deadlines were not all met, a circumstance that contributed to the delay in the preparation and handing down of this judgment. More
This is an appeal against part of the judgment of the High Court of Zimbabwe (“the court a quo”), sitting as an appellate court at Harare, dated 9 October 2023. The part appealed against is the dismissal, by the court a quo,of the appellant’s appeal against both conviction and sentence. More
The appellant was tried, convicted and sentenced in the Provincial Magistrates court at Harare for the crime of Incitement to commit Public Violence as defined in s 187(1) as read with s 36 (1) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23]. He was sentenced to imprisonment for three years of which one year was suspended for five years on conditions of good behavior. The state allegations were as follows. On the 31 July 2018 the appellant was at the Harare International Conference Centre, (HICC) as an accredited local election observer representing the MDC Alliance political party awaiting... More
This application for summary judgment, which on the face of it, is based on an instalment sale agreement between the applicant and first respondent over property house stand number, 978 Wattle Close, West View, Kadoma, also known as number 978, of 960 Gatooma Township, Gatooma. More
: This application was heard on 21 March, 2017. After I had read documents filed of record and heard counsel, I delivered an ex tempore judgment in which I dismissed the application with costs. More
I have before me an application for review filed by the applicant on 25 August 2020 in terms of Rules 26 and 27 of the old High Court Rules 1971. Although four grounds were listed by the applicant in its application, on a proper examination, three grounds are discernible.The applicant alleged that there was a gross procedural irregularity surrounding the decision to cancel the applicant’s registration certificate, as it was not afforded the opportunity to be heard. It was further alleged that the 2nd respondent’s decision was irrational as no reasons were given as required by section 68 of the... More
Deceased estates are more often than not a common ground for disputes. This is one of such.
This is an opposed application where the applicant seeks for an order in the following terms:
“It is ordered that:
1. The purported sale of the immovable property being a certain piece of land situate in the District of Salisbury called stand 3828 Highfield Township by the Fifth Respondent to the second, third and fourth respondents be and is hereby set aside and the Agreement of Sale declared null and void.
2. The respondents and all those claiming title through them be and... More
