This is an application by the Prosecutor-General for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Magistrates Court at Chiredzi in terms of which the first, second and third respondents were acquitted on a charge of assault as defined in s 89(1) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23]. The application is opposed by the three respondents. The fourth respondent cited in the application is the learned Magistrate who presided over the criminal trial. More
This is an appeal in respect of both the conviction and sentence.
The appellant was convicted after a protracted trial by the Magistrate sitting at Chivi on 1 July, 2019 and he was represented by Mr Chivasa. More
This is an application for a Declaratur in which the Applicant is seeking the following relief.
“IT IS DECLARED AND ORDERED THAT:
1 The Applicant, PROSPER MACHEKERA is the sole and legitimate holder of rights, title, and interest in the mining claims which constitute RADNOR 58 Mine registered under certificate of registration 29825BM with the coordinates
A 36K0461998/8087373
C 36K0462002/8086865
E 36K0461504/8086870
G 36K0461500/8087371 More
The applicant is seeking an interdict against the first respondent pending an application for spoliation order mounted before the High Court under Case Number HC 3437/22. The application for a spoliation order under Case No. HC 3437/22 was set to be heard on 29 July 2022 before WAMAMBOJ, to which it was postponed to 7th day of September 2022 after counsel for the first respondent had called in sick and that he was unable to attend to the hearing. The facts in the present application are materially the same with those in the founding affidavit of the application for a... More
This is an appeal against an arbitral award issued by Honourable K Segula on 1 August 2013. The arbitral award upheld the decision of the respondent’s Disciplinary Committee which found the appellant guilty of misconduct and imposed a penalty of dismissal. More
DUBE-BANDA J: This is an application for bail pending trial. Applicant is charged with the counts, count one: robbery as defined in section 126 of the Criminal Law [Codification and Reform] Act [Chapter 9:23]. It being alleged that on the 7thMarch 2021, at around 2020 hours, applicant in the company of four others who are still at large, proceeded to the complainant’s residence armed with pistols. Thereat disarmed a security guard and assaulted him. Threatened with pistols the people at the residence, assaulted one with a pistol butt on the back of the head. Assaulted some with a baton stick.... More
The Biblical saying which reads “Render to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and to God what belongs to God” aptly captures the circumstances of the parties to this application. The applicant, a legal entity which is into the manufacturing and distribution of performance mining chemicals, mining plant and equipment in the African mining market is owed an accumulated Value Added Tax (“VAT”) refund of ZWL 502 289.23 by the respondent which is the tax collector for Government. It, in turn, owes the respondent a total VAT liability of USD 49157.62. The accumulated tax refund and the tax liability are respectively... More
The relevant facts which are common cause are that the Respondent was offered the job post of Sales Manager on the 15th of March 2012. This was after he had been interviewed on the 2nd of March 2012. The (contract) letter indicated that if he had any queries regarding any of the conditions laid down in the letter of appointment the Appellant should not hesitate to contact the Directors who would clarify the issues. The letter also invited the Respondent to sign in acceptance if he was satisfied with the terms and conditions therein. All communication pertaining to the negotiations... More
On 29th June 2015 at Marondera Arbitrator E. Mudzengerere issued an arbitration award. He ordered Appellant to reinstate Respondents’ employment or pay them damages in lieu of reinstatement. Appellant then appealed to this Court against the award. Respondents opposed the appeal. More
The application for a declaratory order in terms of s85 (1) of the Constitution was placed before me on the unopposed roll, the respondents not having filed opposition. Although the 1st respondent had also not filed opposition to the 1st applicant’s part of the combined application, Mr Ndubiwa for the 1st respondent was in attendance and counsel advised that they were in the process of achieving an amicable settlement of the matter. There being no appearance or opposition for the 2nd and 3rd respondents I granted a default judgment in the following: More
This is an appeal against the decision of the Appeal authority which confirmed the appellant’s dismissal from the respondent’s employment on the 10th of October 2012. More
The parties cited above have been locked in protracted proceedings pertaining to the case in which the Respondent was dismissed by the Appellant following his conviction on a criminal charge wherein he was sentenced to an effective period of imprisonment of eighteen months. More
The plaintiff in this matter instituted summons for provisional sentence against the defendant for the sum of USD $537 556.00, together with interest at the rate of 5% per cent per annum from March 31 2022. The background of this case will help put the law into perspective. The plaintiff and defendant entered into an oral agreement whilst in the United Kingdom. The agreement was for construction of a farmhouse, church building and hospital. A total amount of US$995 380.65 was advanced to effect the construction. In addition, the parties signed and Memorandum of Agreement hereinafter referred to as the... More
This urgent chamber application stems from a seemingly unending dispute. I remark so because from the papers before me, the acrimony between the parties has been on-going for a few years now. More
The plaintiff and the defendant were married in Harare in February 1982. There are no children to the marriage. The parties have realized that they no longer have love and affection for each other and that their relationship has broken down and cannot be retrieved. They came to this joint conclusion at a pre-trial conference that was held after the plaintiff had issued summons for divorce in January 2006. At the same pre-trial conference, the parties also agreed on how to share the movable assets of their joint estate in the event that the court agreed with them that their... More
