This is an application for rescission of judgment.
On the 11 March 2014 the hearing of an application for interim relief was set down for hearing at 0900 hours before Musariri J. Both parties had been duly advised of the date of set down and proof of service was on file. Applicant was in default and the application for interim relief was dismissed for want of prosecution. It is that order that is sought to be rescinded through this application. More
The applicant approached the court through the urgent book on 01 February 2013. The Judge court directed that the matter be set down for hearing on 04 February 2013, on which date the respondent’s legal practitioner Mr Samukange successfully applied for postponement of the matter to 06 February 2013 to enable him to take full instructions from his clients one of who was said to be out of the country. On 06 February 2013 the respondents filed opposition to the application. The applicant in that application sought an interim relief that;- More
This is an appeal against the whole judgment of the High Court, which dismissed the appellant’s application for setting aside an arbitral award made by the second respondent. More
The applicant seeks an order setting aside an award rendered by the second respondent. The arbitral award was rendered following a dispute arising from the implementation of an agreement for the sale of shares between applicant and first respondent. Second respondent was the appointed arbitrator. Applicant and the first respondent are both mining entities of high repute. The application was made in terms of Article 34 (2)(ii) of the Model Law to the Arbitration Act. The arbitral award is impugned on the basis that it offends the public policy of Zimbabwe. More
This is an application for leave to appeal against the decision of the High Court sitting at Harare on 4 March 2020. In that case (HC 9000/19) the High Court dismissed an application by the applicant for the dismissal of case number HC 11505/18 for want of prosecution. Then in HC 3278/20 the same court dismissed an application for condonation of late noting of appeal filed by the applicant. More
The appeal revolved around mining claims at Wendale 43 Block situated in Domboshava registered under certificate no. 18007. The parties were all registered companies, having been registered in terms of the company laws of Zimbabwe. In February 2018 the first respondent wrote to the appellant, seeking from it a tribute arrangement in respect of the mining location in issue. The request was rejected. Despite the rejection, on 30 May 2018 the first respondent was observed exploiting minerals at the appellant’s mining location. When confronted, the first respondent indicated that it had partnered with the second respondent in a mining venture... More
This is an application in terms of r 43 (1) of the Supreme Court Rules, 2018 (the Rules) for the condonation of non-compliance with r 38 (1) of the Rules and for extension of time within which to appeal. The applicant seeks to appeal the judgment of the High Court handed down as judgment number HH 452/21. More
This is application made in terms of s 213 of the Companies Act [Chapter 24:03]for leave to institute proceedings against the respondent, a company in liquidation. Should leave be granted, the applicant intends to file an application in terms of r 449 of the High Court Rules 1971, for correction of a default judgment entered against it in in favour of the respondent on 12 March 2014. A draft of the application to be filed once the anticipated leave was submitted with applicant’s papers.The application, should leave be granted, will be a second bite since an earlier attempt in the... More
This is an appeal against an arbitral award which award upheld the respondents’ entitlement to a bonus which had been unilaterally withdrawn by the employer (appellant).
The respondents were employees of the appellant. Prior to February 2009 it remunerated its employees in Zimbabwean dollars. This was prior to the country dollarizing. The appellant paid its grade 11 up to grade 14 employees who went on annual leave, a leave bonus, housing, transport and meals’ allowances. These were paid over and above their salaries to cushion them from the vagaries of inflation. The respondents are grade 11 plus employees.
When the... More
The facts of this matter are briefly that the Respondent was employed as an electrical engineer. He was charged with two acts of misconduct that is
1. Habitual and substantial neglect of duty, and
2. Lack of skill
The events which led to the charges were that on 10 and 11 September 2010, the Respondent is alleged, contrary to his duties, to have failed to repair an important BLC mill motor. More
This is an urgent chamber application for an order interdicting the first respondent from carrying out any exploration and or mining operations including excavating, extracting and carting away coal or any other mineral from the Reserved area 1035 (RA1035) measuring 56 203 hectares and the area covered by Special Grant 849 in the Bulawayo mining district. On the return date the applicants seek an order declaring that the first respondent has no right to prospect and peg in the area referred to above and for first respondent and all persons
claiming occupation through it to be ordered to vacate the... More
The present application seeks to review the first respondent’s decision in declaring the area described in the schedule to Statutory Instrument 145/2018 as a Cantonment Area, acting in terms of section 89 of the Defence Act [Chapter 11:02] (“the Defence Act”). It is applicant’s case that it is the holder of two hundred and sixty mining claims in the Darwendale area of Mashonaland West mining district. Relevant to this matter are claims known as Wendale 42 and Wendale 43 Block which are registered under certificates number 18006BM and 18007BM respectively. The said mines are situated partly on Darwendale South Eclipse... More
CHITAKUNYE AJA: This is an opposed court application for rescission of a judgment handed down by this Court on 4October 2019 under case number SC 116/18 as judgment number SC 76/19. The application is made in terms of r 73 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2018 as read with r 449 of the High Court Rules, 1971 More
This is an appeal against the decision of the High Court upholding the respondents’ special plea of prescription and consequently dismissing the appellant’s claim with costs. The appellant has noted her appeal against the entire judgment and prays, as per her amended prayer, that the judgment of the court a quo be set aside and substituted with an order dismissing the special plea with costs. More
