The facts of this matter are common cause. The appellant and thefirst respondent are companies duly incorporated in terms of the laws of Zimbabwe. On 22 June 2007, the second respondent published a forfeiture notice in terms of which part of the notice related to mining claim number 26736, known as Mutuwi. The mining claim was registered in the name of an entity known as Dimension Stone Quarries (Private) Limited. The notice stated that the mining location had on 20June 2007 been forfeited in terms of the Mines and Minerals Act [Chapter 21:05] (the Act). It also stated that it... More
This is a chamber application in which the applicant seeks relief in the following terms:
“TERMS OF FINAL ORDER SOUGHT
That you show cause to this Honourable Court, if any, why a final order should not be made in the following terms:
1. The provisional order herein be and is hereby confirmed.
2. The respondent, its employees and all those claiming occupation of the boundaries falling within applicant’s claim number 26736BM be and are hereby ordered to vacate from the boundaries of the claim within five (5) days of this order.
3. In the event of the respondent failing to... More
This judgment is a consolidated one for the matters HC 13/21 and HC 3203/21 following consolidation of the two matters by consent of the parties. In this judgment, I refer to the parties as cited in case HC 13/21. More
The applicant approached this court seeking the confirmation of the provisional order. More particularly, the relief sought by the applicant is expressed in the following way:
“1. The interim order granted by this Honourable Court on the 26th of March 2022, per Ms Mungwari J, be and is hereby confirmed.
2. The writ of execution issued by the 2nd Respondent in HC3203/21, dated 16th February 2022, be and is hereby set aside.
3. The 3rd Respondent’s execution of the writ of execution issued by the 2nd Respondent dated 16th February 2022, be and is hereby set aside.
4. The 1st... More
The twenty three Respondents were employed by the Appellant in different capacities. In 2002 the respondents were dismissed from employment by the Appellant. There are no documents filed of record showing what the charges were but they were subsequently relieved of their duties. Respondents immediately filed a complaint against Queen Elizabeth School for an unfair labour practice with a labour officer. The matter was subsequently referred for arbitration. As indicated the record of the Arbitration process was not filed of record. The Arbitrator noted that Queen Elizabeth School had raised a defence that it was not the Respondent’s employer but... More
D. Mupwanyiwa The plaintiff issued summons against the defendant on 2 March 2011. In its declaration, the plaintiff averred that the parties entered into a swop agreement in 2009, in terms of which the plaintiff surrendered to the defendant a Mazda B22 vehicle, registration number AAH 5588, and the defendant undertook to use the parts of its Nissan SE vehicle to reconstruct the plaintiff’s Nissan SE motor vehicle registration number AAH 5587. More
On 24 April 2013 I dismissed Applicants’ application. Applicants requests reasons for such dismissal. These are they;
Applicants made an application to this court in terms of section 89(2) (b),(c) (d) of the Labour Act as read with Rule 14(1) (b) this court’s rules. Applicants alleged that a Labour Officer failed for some reason to issue a Certificate of No Settlement, in relation to the dispute in terms of Section 93(3) of the Act after the expiry of 30 days. The initial day of conciliation was 21 November 2012. 30 days there from was 9 January 2013. On 14 December... More
This is an appeal against the whole judgment of the High Court of Zimbabwe (“the court a quo”) in which a preliminary point that the appellant failed to give the requisite notice in terms s 6 of the State Liabilities Act [Chapter 8:14] as read with s 196 (1) of the Customs and Excise Act [Chapter 23:02] before instituting proceedings against the first respondent was upheld. In the event of success, the appellant prayed for an order that the instant appeal succeeds and that the matter be remitted to the court a quo for it to be heard afresh before... More
The background to this case is as follows: The five respondents were employed by the applicant in August 2015 the applicant terminated the respondents’’ employment on three months’ notice.
The effective date of termination was to be 31 October 2015.
On 15 October 2015 applicant applied for exemption from paying compensation in terms of section 12 C (3) of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01] to the exemption committee of the National Employment Council for the Motor Industry (the exemption committee)
On 23 November 2015 a hearing was conducted before the exemption committee. Subsequently on 3 December 2015 the exemption committee... More
The applicant in the case seemed to have employed Winston Churchill’s philosophy that when you have an important point to make, you do not try to be subtle. Instead, you must use a pile driver to hit the point home. You then return to hit it again with a tremendous whack. The applicant took no prisoners in challenging the respondents’ decision on the grounds of gross unreasonableness, irrationality and absence of reasons. In the midst of it, the interpretation of what in the automotive industry is meant by the term semi knocked down kits, is where the dispute between the... More
This is application for a declaratory order declaring the ruling by the Arbitrator null and void for want of compliance with s 89(2)(c) iii) of the Labour Act [Cap 28:01], which requires that an award for reinstatement must have as an alternative specific amount of damages to be awarded to the employee concerned. More
The appeal was noted against an arbitral award handed down on the 9th of November, 2011. The Respondent also noted a cross-appeal against part of the award. For the purpose of this judgment the Appellant is the employee and the Respondent the employer. More
The following facts are common cause. The plaintiff is the owner of business premises situated at defendant No 18 Shepperton Road, Graniteside, Harare. On 16 December, 2002, the company entered into a lease agreement with the defendant whereby the defendant leased from the plaintiff a portion of the business premises. The lease agreement was renewable annually. In 2005, the parties agreed to renew the agreement every four months and would agree on the monthly rental for the four months. In December 2005 the rental was $40 million. It was a term of the agreement that rent was payable on or... More
The appellant and the first respondent are companies incorporated in terms of the laws of Zimbabwe. The first respondent is the owner of a certain piece of land, being two thirds shares of the Remaining extent of Teviotdale (hereinafter referred to as ‘part of the farm’) held under Deed of Transfer 8935/90. The appellant is the registered holder of a mining block consisting of ten gold reef claims named Forest K of Forest View (hereinafter referred to as ‘Forest K claims’) which block is situated on the respondent’s farm. More
This is an application for the confirmation of a provisional order granted on an urgent basis on 27 July 2020 wherein the respondent and anyone in its employ was interdicted from extracting mineral resources at applicant’s mining claim registered as 40826BM. The final order sought herein is that respondent and anyone in its employ should allow applicant access to its mining site, hand over the same to applicant and not interfere with applicant’s claim and activities on the said claim. More
