In action proceedings instituted before the High Court of Zimbabwe, the appellant, as plaintiff, sought an order against the respondent for payment of damages in the sums of US$100,000 for malicious prosecution and US$300,000 for malicious arrest and detention. At the close of the plaintiff’s case, the respondent, as defendant, applied for absolution from the instance. The High Court found for the respondent and, consequently, granted absolution from the instance, with the appellant paying the costs of suit. It is against that order that an appeal has been noted to this Court. More
At the centre of this application is a minor child called Michelle Deborah Mwenje. Her right to academic freedom as enshrined in s 61 (1) (c) of the Constitution stands threatened and at risk of being breached by squabbles between the applicant and the respondents. More
The appellant was employed on a fixed term contract. The contract expired and was renewed. After its renewal, the appellant was fired allegedly for incompetence, needless to say this decision to terminate the contract of employment was unlawful as it did not comply with the provisions of Labour Act [Chapter 28:01] Section 12 B (2) which provides that;
“an employee is unfairly dismissed – More
The applicant approached this court seeking an order in the following terms:
“1. The first, second respondents and any other directors, shareholders, officers, employees, security personnel and/or agents of the third, fourth and fifth respondents are ordered to refrain from conducting the third, fourth and fifth respondents’ affairs in a manner that is oppressive and unfairly prejudicial to the applicant’s interests and consequently are ordered to refrain from harassing or interfering with the Applicant directly or indirectly in his capacity as a member, shareholder and Managing Director of the first respondent. More
Applicant applied to this Court for condonation of late filing of an appeal. Respondent opposed the application. The intended appeal is against the judgement of the Court referenced LC/H/171/19. The judgment is dated the 14 June 2019. This application was filed on the 22nd January 2020. Thus the extent of the delay in filing the appeal is almost 6 (six) months. I consider that to be an inordinate delay. The Applicant’s attorney stated that the delay is not inordinate. Applicant was requiredto seek leave to appeal within 21 days, but didso 5-6 months later. I consider it is disingenuous to... More
This urgent chamber application was placed before me on 15 August 2011. After perusing the papers, I endorsed thereon, on the same date:
“The papers do not establish how or when the urgency arose. The matter is not urgent”. More
The background to this matter as gleaned from the papers filed of record is that on 25 August 2017 the City of Bulawayo (Council) allocated the applicant 198 stands in Pumula South Phase iii, and that stand number 15520 is one of the 198 stands. On 9 November 2021 the applicant sold stand 15520 to one Milidza Moyo (Moyo). On the other hand, on 25 March 2021 first respondent (Dube) obtained a court order in HC 2039/20, in the main compelling the third and fourth respondent (Exceed Construction and Mharadze) to construct a two roomed house at stand number 15520... More
This is an opposed application for the upholding of a special plea, raised as a plea in abatement to the plaintiff’s summons and declaration filed on 18 June 2020 in the case bearing the same case number.
The summarized facts are that, the plaintiff, issued summons commencing action for the recovery of the sum US850, 000.00 or its equivalent in Zimbabwean dollars at the prevailing inter-bank rate, which he had paid as security deposit in terms of a lease agreement entered with the defendant. Both parties are duly incorporated companies. It is common cause that the defendant is a Company... More
This is an appeal against the decision of the designated authority which upheld the Appellant’s dismissal at his workplace.
The basic facts of the case are that Appellant was dismissed on 22/07/2011 following a hearing into allegations that he had contravened section (4) (h) of Statutory Instrument 165/92 (gross incompetence inefficiency in the performance of his work)
The charges in question arose from the fact that certain bearings which had been under his care and custody had been discovered to be missing following a stock take by his superiors. Further to that various other items which were also kept at... More
The plaintiffcompany in this matter issued summons against the defendant company and prayed for the following:
(a) An order confirming the cancellation ofagreement of lease between plaintiff and defendant in terms of which plaintiff leased to defendant the premises located on a portion of stand 391 Bulawayo Township, also known as Warehouse, Haddon & Sly Complex, Bulawayo.
(b) An order for the ejectment forthwith of the defendant and all its subtenants, assignees, invitees, and all those claiming occupation through defendant from plaintiff’s premises.
(c) Payment in the sum of US$33 950,00 being arrear rent as at 31 August 2016, together... More
Applicant is a real estate firm and respondent its former client. Applicant seeks an order for specific performance directing respondent to pay an amount of US$ 20,037,50 being the sum allegedly due under a realtor`s mandate. Respondent contests the relief sought on the basis that applicant failed to deliver on that mandate. More
The plaintiff is claiming US$201 250 as commission for facilitating the sale of stand 1824 Ardbennie Township, interest on the said sum plus costs of suit. At the close of the plaintiff’s case the defendant applied for absolution from the instance. More
Applicant applied to this Court for condonation of a late appeal in terms of Rule 22 of the Labour Court Rules S.I. 150.17. Respondent opposed the application. More
1. That the Notice of Response is fatally defective for want of form:
Rule 19(2) of the Labour Court Rules, 2017 requires a party to file his response in the prescribed form called LC2. Appellant alleged that the Response in casu does not comply with the requirement. A comparison of the response and Form LC 2 shows that the only difference is absence of the inscription “LC2” at the top right corner. The inscription is meant to identify the forms in the Rules.
It is not necessary that a party’s response in their pleadings be inscribed by the Form’s notation.... More
