The plaintiff and the defendant entered into an agreement for the supply of fertilizer. Pursuant to that agreement the plaintiff alleged that it paid US$124 500 to the defendant fertilizer. The defendant failed to deliver. The plaintiff therefore issued out summons for payment of the $124 500 being restitution for the amount paid and interest at the prescribed rate of 5% per annum from 22 September 2017 to the date of payment in full, and costs of suit on an attorney client scale. More
The circumstances giving rise to these proceedings are these. On 21 August 2002, the parties signed a contract in terms of which Delta Operations (Pvt) Ltd. (“Delta”) would deliver a quantity of barley suitable for use as stock feed to Origen Corporation (Pvt) Ltd (“Origen”) during June and July 2002 and in return Origen would deliver during October 2004 an equivalent quantity of barley suitable for brewing. The relevant provisions of the agreement are these –
“1.1 During the month of June and July 2002 Netbrew shall supply to Origen at the Northern Products grain silos in Chinhoyi a quantity... More
On 12 May 2017, the plaintiff issued summons against the defendant claiming payment of $5 198 076.92 representing its 51% share of profits for three years from 2014-2016 in terms of an indigenisation agreement together with prescribed interest from 31 June 2014 and collection commission. More
(1) This is a court application for a declaratory order brought in terms of s14 of the High Court Act, Chapter [7:06]. The relief sought is couched in the following terms;
“1. It is hereby declared that the applicant has paid the 1st respondent full purchase price for an undivided share of 0.39% of Coyant Investments (Private) Limited, translating to 0,39% of Stand 12923 in Madokero Estate coupled with an exclusive right of occupation of Flat 37C on the immovable property. More
Applicant employee approached this court on 3 review grounds namely
1. Improper constitution of disciplinary Committee
2.1 Grossly irregular disciplinary proceedings based on fact that done after matter
referred to a labour officer per Sec 101(6) of the labour Act.
2.2 Denial of legal representation
3) Grossly unreasonable findings without evidence.
The Chairperson of the disciplinary Committee was sued in his official capacity so on the date of the review hearing only the employee and the employer appeared to argue the matter. The employer took points in limine vis grounds 2.1, 2.2, and 3 saying that these were not review... More
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
