This is a court application for contempt of court. The applicant seeks that the respondents be held to be in contempt of court, and as a sanction thereof be ordered to pay a fine and to comply with the court order.
[2] The respondents in this contempt of court application are the Provincial Mining Director – Gweru and the Minister of Mines and Mining Development. At the commencement of the hearing, Mr Mutatu Counsel for the applicant informed the court that the respondents were consenting to the order sought. Mr Jukwa Counsel for the respondents confirmed that indeed the respondents... More
This is an appeal against the whole judgment of the Honourable Magistrate sitting at Murehwa Magistrate Court on 14 day of December, 2021.The appellant and the respondent are neighbors. The appellant resides in Chidziva village, under Chief Musana in Bindura. The respondent is a resident of Majero-Chitenga village, Chikwaka, Mrewa. The parties have been embroiled in a boundary dispute for a long time as they shared the same boundary. At one time Chief Chikwaka ruled in favour of the respondent. Later headman Chikosha also ruled in favour of the respondent. Headman Chikosha also wrote a letter to the Police confirming... More
The 14 applicants filed individual urgent applications against the same respondents. At the commencement of the hearing of these applications Mr Makoni who represented all the applicants applied for the consolidation of the matters so that the court can have a single hearing. The application for consolidation was not opposed. More
GUVAVA J: This matter was placed before me on a certificate of urgency on 7 March 2013 in terms of R244 of the High Court Rules, 1972. On 11 March 2013 I endorsed on the record that the matter was not urgent having formed this opinion after reading the application before me. By letter dated 14 March 2013 the applicant’s legal practitioners requested to appear before me and make representations with regards to the issue of urgency. I then requested the Registrar to set the matter down on 18 March 2013 so that I could hear counsel. More
This is a court application for an order Actio Communi Divendo. Put simply, any party with an interest in jointly owned property can claim the division of the joint property according to that joint owner’s share in the property. It is a requirement for the division of the joint property that the parties need to try to divide the property among themselves first, before approaching the Court for an action to divide the property, which action is called the actio communi dividendo. See Robson v Theron 1978 (1) SA 841 (A). More
This is an appeal against the whole judgment of the High Court handed down on 12 October 2016. In the judgment, the High Court found the appellants liable to the respondent More
The background facts to this matter are largely common cause. The respondents were employed by the applicant as security guards on fixed term contracts renewable every three months. Their duties were in respect to the applicant’s quasi fiscal activities which were finally wound up in the first quarter of 2011. The respondents’ period of employment ranged from 2007 and August 2008 to January and April 2011 when their contracts expired by effluxion of time and were not renewed. More
On 16th September 2011 the Honourable C Mesikano made an arbitration award. Amongst other things he ordered Appellant to pay Respondents an amount of US$9, 363, 362.18 with immediateeffect. Appellant then appealed to this Court against the award. Respondents opposed the appeal.
Two developments occurred in this Court which require recording. Firstly Appellant withdrew its Notice Of Amendment tothe grounds of appeal. The withdrawal was made orally at the commencement of oral arguments. Respondents had no issue/s with the withdrawal. That left the original grounds of appeal intact. Secondly both parties’ attorneys agreed to amend the citation of the parties... More
This is an appeal against the whole judgment of the Labour Court (“the court a quo”), dated 10 June 2022. The judgment was passed in respect of two consolidated appeals that were filed before it. In that judgment the court a quo upheld the respondent’s appeal against dismissal from employment and ordered his reinstatement or alternatively, the payment of damages in the event that reinstatement was no longer possible. More
In September, 2016 the applicant purchased the mining business from Old Nic Mine. It undertook to employ the mine’s former workers. Its undertaking was premised on the condition that the workers would not claim from it any money which was due to them from Old Nic Mine for the period that they were on unpaid leave. A majority of the mine’s former workers agreed to the condition. They were therefore re-engaged and their contracts of employment taken over and carried forward by the applicant. The respondents did not agree to the condition which the applicant proposed to others and them.... More
In a judgment handed down on 12 May 2015 Justice Smith (Retired), found the appellant guilty of various acts of misconduct, in terms of the Labour (National Employment Code of Conduct) Regulations, Statutory Instrument 15 of 2006. The retired judge was the Hearing Officer in a disciplinary hearing convened by the respondent, to determine various allegations of misconduct levelled against the appellant, during his tenure as General Manager Finance, Zimbabwe Broadcasting Holdings (Pvt) Ltd. Consequent to his conviction on the charges of misconduct, the respondent’s Board of Directors terminated the appellant’s contract of employment. More
The appellant was convicted on his plea of guilty to contravening s 28 (2) of the Firearms Act [Cap 10:09]. He was sentenced to pay a fine of Z$2 000 or in default, four days imprisonment. He now appeals against both conviction and sentence.
The agreed facts were that on 29 September 2006 and at 2030 hours the appellant drove along Harare-Bulawayo road and upon reaching Selous Shopping Centre he parked his Isuszu KB 250 pick-up truck. He disembarked from the motor vehicle and went into the shop. Upon his return he discovered that his pistol had been stolen from... More
At the commencement of the proceedings, 2nd Appellant informed the Court that Appellants were waiting for a Mr. Mangwende who was coming to present the matter on their behalf. Mr. Mangwende’s motor vehicle was alleged to have broken down near Mutare. The Court inquired from 2nd Appellant whether this Mr. Mangwende was a legal practitioner or trade unionist. It turned out that he was neither. The court informed 2nd Appellant that in the result Mr. Mangwende could not present their case having regard to the provisions of section 92 of the Labour Act. Appellants thereafter made a decision to have... More
The Appellant was employed by the Respondent on a fixed term contract from 28 July, 2009 to end of June, 2010. The Appellant then absented himself from duty without leave from 21 September, 2009 to 16 October, 2009. This was during examination time when he should have been part of the invigilating team and when he should have been present when students wrote his examination paper. More
