This is an application purportedly made in terms of r 73 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2018 as read with r 449 (1) (b) of the High Court Rules, 1971 for the correction of a judgment issued by a judge of this Court in chambers on 20 January 2020 in case number SC 562/19. More
This is an application made in terms of r 73 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2018 as read with r 29(a) (sic) of the High Court Rules, 2021 for the rescission of a judgment of this Court that was handed down in an appeal filed by the applicant under case number SC 443/21. After hearing the parties on 12 October 2022, we dismissed the application and indicated that full reasons for our decision would follow. What I provide hereunder are those reasons. More
This is an application for leave for direct access to the court made in terms of s 167(5) of the Constitution (“the Constitution”), as read with r 21(2) and (3) of the Constitutional Court Rules, 2016 (“the Rules”). The application is opposed. More
This is an appeal against the entire judgement of the High Court sitting at Harare, handed down on 18 November 2021. The judgment dismissed with costs an urgent chamber application for an interdict restraining the first respondent from evicting the appellant, through the second respondent, from premises that she rented from the first respondent. At the hearing of the appeal, the appellant was in default, it being noted that according to the record before the court, she was aware of the date of set down of the appeal hearing. The appellant’s name having been called out as mandated by the... More
This is an appeal against the whole judgment of the Labour Court handed down on 4 October 2019, upholding the Arbitrator’s decision, to the effect that the appellant was not constructively dismissed. More
The facts of this matter are largely common cause. The applicant was employed by the respondent as a personal assistant to the Managing Director, Transport Division. By letter dated 15 June 2009, the applicant was notified that the respondent had restructured its divisions to avoid going into insolvency and that the restructuring had resulted in the abolishment of her post. Consequent thereto, she was offered two options, viz: a retrenchment package or alternatively, placement on garden leave pending redeployment to any other available post within the respondent. Altogether, the exercise affected nine other employees in the respondent’s transport division whose... More
The matter was heard as an appeal against an arbitral award handed down by the Honourable Mugumisi on 21 August 2010.
The background facts to the matter are as follows;
The Appellant was employed by the Respondent as a Personal Assistant to the Managing Director. Through a letter dated 24 June, 2009 Appellant was advised of the abolition of the position owing to low business volumes and a restructuring exercise. She then raised a grievance regarding the manner in which the matter had been handled by the Respondent. When Respondent failed to respond, she referred a complaint to the labour... More
This Court allowed respondent’s appeal against the decision of the arbitrator. Applicant is dissatisfied with that decision and intends to approach the Supreme Court on appeal. This application is in terms of section 92F (1) of the Labour Court Act (Chapter 28:01). More
The first respondent instituted proceedings in the magistrates court against the applicants for their eviction. The eviction order was granted after the court had heard the parties. The applicants noted an appeal challenging the magistrate’s decision on the merits as well as on the basis that the first respondent had no locus standi in the matter. The first respondent applied for leave to execute the eviction order pending appeal. The application was granted. More
The applicant approached the court through the urgent chamber book seeking stay of execution of an eviction order issued by the magistrate court. In specific terms the applicant sought:
TERMS OF THE FINAL ORDER
That you show cause why an order in the following terms should not be granted;
1. The eviction of the applicants be and is hereby stayed pending finalisation of the application for review filed with this Honourable court under case No. HC 7542/17 More
This is an application for condonation and extension of time within which to note an appeal made in terms of r 39 (4) as read with r 43 (3) of the Supreme Court, 2018. This matter was set down for a virtual hearing on 7 March 2024. Although the applicant had filed heads of argument, on the date and time of the hearing, she did not connect onto the IECMS system. Soon after the session started the IECMS system had a partial connectivity breakdown. While it was possible to see the party before me the sound was mute and there... More
The applicant approached this court seeking an order in the following terms:
“IT IS BE AND HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. That condonation of the late application for leave to appeal for case number HC1788/15 be and is hereby granted.
2. That Applicant shall lodge her leave to appeal to the Supreme Court within 7 days of the granting of this order.
3. There be no order as to costs.” More
This matter was before me on the unopposed motion roll on 30 June 2021. The plaintiff applied for default judgment against the first and second defendants for payment of USD$500 000 as damages for “shock, non-patrimonial damages, post traumatic disorder, pain and suffering.” The plaintiff also claimed interest from the date of the arbitral award dated 28 March 2014 in an arbitration case between the plaintiff and the second respondent. Lastly plaintiff prayed for costs of suit. The plaintiff in casu applied for default judgment on the basis as stated by her, that the defendants failed to enter appearance to... More
