The respondent, as the plaintiff, issued summons against the four excipients, as the defendants. The precise relief which the respondent seeks is set out in the summons as follows:
“(a) An order declaring that he is a 30% shareholder of DMC Holdings (Private) Limited (1st Defendant) and consequently has an interest in Christmas Gift (Private) Limited (2nd Defendant) and in the land held by 2nd Defendant being the Remainder of Christmas Gift held under Deed of Transfer No. 820/51 and Deed of Transfer No. 2681/13.
(b) An order declaring that because of his interest in 2nd Defendant and the land... More
[1] The appellant is a former employee of the respondent. This is an appeal against the manner in which the parties parted ways. Following a hearing on 31st October 2024, an order was made in the following terms :
1. The appeal be and is hereby dismissed.
2. There is no order as to costs. More
This is an application for the review of a decision to retrench approved by the 1st respondent on the 30th of May 2005, in terms of section 12C of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01]. The grounds for review are that the 1st respondent approved the retrenchment of the applicants by the 2nd respondent, firstly, while the question as to who could lawfully retrench the applicants was sub judice, secondly, without having heard the applicants on the merits of the matter and, thirdly, by failing to incorporate the issue of motor vehicles in the terms of retrenchment. More
The applicant in this matter claims the sum of US$40,000 in terms of a loan agreement concluded with the respondent on 31 August 2010. The respondent was to repay the amount lent by way of four instalments of US$10,000 from September to December 2010. He has failed to do so despite several demands. The applicant seeks repayment of the full amount together with interest, collection commission and costs on a higher scale. More
The 2nd and 3rd applicants are registered legal practitioners who practice in partnership under the name Antonio & Dzvetero Legal Practitioners. This is an application brought in terms of section 27 (1) of the High Court Act [Chapter 7:06], as read with Order 33 of the High Court Rules, 1971 (the previous Rules), and the common law. In addition, the application relied on section 14 of the High Court Act, the Administrative Justice Act [Chapter 10:28], and the Constitution of Zimbabwe. The applicants cited the Executive Secretary of the Law Society in his official capacity as the official, vested by... More
The brief facts of this matter are that appellant was employed as a tyre fitter. On 30 March 2015 he was found working on a vehicle tightening the tyres with a wrench. He had been forbidden to use the wrench on the nuts. Appellant then appeared before a disciplinary committee charged with contravening Part III of the Unifreight Code of Conduct and Grievance Procedure Part 3, 3.5 i.e. More
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
