This is an urgent application for an order interdicting the first respondent from carrying on mining operations on the applicant’s mineral claims described in the papers as Contrica 9 Registered Number 23331BM; Contrica 21 Registered Number 24482BM; Contrica 45 Registered Number 24866BM; and Contrica 46 Registered Number 24867BM. The order also seeks the barring of the first respondent from coming within two hundred metres of the mining claims referred to above. More
At the conclusion of arbitral proceedings, the arbitrator upheld the respondent’s claim for unlawful dismissal and ordered her reinstatement or alternatively payment of damages in lieu of reinstatement. An appeal against the award to the Labour Court was dismissed with costs. The present appeal is against that order. More
This is an appeal against a judgment of the Labour Court wherein the decision to dismiss the appellant from employment that had been made by the appellant’s Managing Director was set aside whilst an earlier decision by the disciplinary committee that the respondent be issued with a second written warning was confirmed. More
Applicant filed in this court an application for rescission in terms of section 92C of the Labour Act Chapter 28:01 hereafter called “the Act”. Respondent opposed the application. The order in question was issued by Judge Hove on the 28th April 2021. The order reads as follows,
“The application for condonation and reinstatement of case LC/H/LRA/25/90being unopposed be and is hereby granted.” (The underlying is for emphasis.) Applicant’s case is that the order was issued in error. The error being that the matter was infact opposed. The Applicant referred to its opposing papers and Heads of Argument which had been... More
On 13th October 2015 at Harare, Arbitrator T.C. Sengwe issued an arbitration award. He ordered Appellant to reinstate Respondent or pay him damages in lieu of reinstatement. Appellant then appealed to this Courtagainst the award. Respondent opposed the appeal. The grounds of appeal were three-fold as follows,
“1. The Honourable Arbitrator grossly erred and misdirected (sic) on a point of law by failing to make a finding that Respondent was grossly incompetent as charged in terms of the National Employment Code of Conduct S.I. – 15/06.
2. The Honourable Arbitrator grossly erred and misdirected at law by relying on an... More
The respondent, Mathew Muchazviona Gwaku, then a self-actor issued summons in the Magistrates Court in 2018 seeking the removal of appellant’s property from his Clock Room at Mudzviti Bus Terminus in Mutare on the grounds that the appellant had failed to pay rentals in the sum of $400-00 and advertising fee totalling $800-00. He indicated that he had given appellant a notice to vacate by writing a letter of demand which letter was ignored by the appellant. On 15 August 2018 the appellant filed its appearance to defend the action. On 27 August 2018 respondent filed a notice to plead.... More
This is an urgent chamber application filed on the 8th May 2019 seeking the following interim relief:
“Interim relief
1. That the 1st respondent’s decision of the 209th April 2019 be and is hereby stayed pending determination of the application for review filed under case number HC 1038/19.
2. For the avoidance of doubt 2nd and 3rd respondents, their agents or assignees be and are hereby ordered not to carry out mining activities in the disputed production shaft.
3. Applicant be and is hereby allowed to carry out its mining activities on Jessie’s Luck B Mine, outside the disputed area.”... More
This is an appeal against the decision of the arbitrator who found in favour of the respondent after a hearing before that tribunal. Most of the facts in this matter are common cause. Appellant’s grounds of appeal are as follows:
1. The arbitrator a quo grossly erred and misdirected himself at law in making a finding that respondent had been unfairly dismissed based on procedural irregularities whichdid not vitiate the proceedings and without alleging that respondent suffered any prejudice.
2. The arbitrator grossly erred at law by failing to remit the matter for a hearing de novo had the hearing... More
This is an appeal against the decision of the arbitrator where he ruled that the respondent employee had been unlawfully dismissed and ordered that she be reinstated with full benefits or that she be paid damages in place of reinstatement.
Facts of the matter are that the respondent who was in the appellant’s employ as a finance director had her services terminated on notice by the appellant following prior discussion about her incompetency or failure to live up to expectations of her post among other things.
She was riled by the dismissal as she felt that it was done improperly... More
The applicant is a haulage transporter. It transports:
(a) mining equipment and products;
(b) grain;
(c) cement and hardware. Its major clients comprise:
(i) manufacturers
(ii) cement producers;
(iii) non-governmental organisations – and
(iv) government departments as well as
(v) private business which includes manufacturers and traders’ products.
On 29 June 2016, the court placed the applicant under provisional judicial management. More
This is an application which the applicants have named an “Urgent chamber application for stay of execution”. The relief sought is a provisional order. The interim relief sought is an order to ‘stop’ the respondent from executing of a seizure order issued by this court on the 21 September 2022 under case number HACC 24/22 in terms of s 47 of the Money Landing and Proceeds of Crime Act [Chapter 9.24] pending the determination of an application for rescission of judgment filed under case no HACC 33/22. The draft final relief is identical to the interim relief sought, perhaps by... More
1. This is an application brought in terms of the common law for the setting aside of a property seizure order.
2. The property seizure order was granted by this court on 21 February 2022. It was made on the basis of an application by the Prosecutor-General in terms of s 47 of the Money Laundering and Proceeds of Crime Act [Chapter 9:24] (“the Money Laundering Act”). The application that gave rise to the order was an ex parte chamber application. More
This matter was placed before me as an urgent court application for variation of a custody order issued by this court in Case No. CIV “A” 153/23. On 14 January 2025, after hearing submissions from the parties’ legal practitioners, the court issued an ex tempore judgment upholding the point in limine that the respondent had dirty hands and could not be heard. Consequently, the court disregarded the respondent’s opposing papers and proceeded with the hearing of the application as an unopposed matter. I subsequently reserved judgment on the matter. What follows are the full written reasons for the court’s decision. More
The now appellant was the applicant before the court a quo. The brief background is that he met the respondent in 2008 and they contracted a customary law union in 2016 and separated in or about December 2019. Three children were born to them being:
i. Simbarashe Mangwengwende, a boy, born on 20 April 2010.
ii. Akudzwe Kateve Mangwengwende, a boy, born on 18 June 2012; and
iii. Tawana Chidiwa Mangwengwende, a girl, born on 3 July 2015.
Upon separation of the parties, the children remained in the custody of the respondent. Having been denied custody, the appellant lodged this... More
The applicant filed an urgent application wherein it seeks an order in the following terms:
TERMS OF INTERIM ORDER
1. Pending the determination of case number 6909/10, the respondents be and are hereby ordered to give the applicant forthwith vacant possession of its business premises at number 1 Manchester Road, Industrial Area, Chinhoyi and all its property thereat. More
