This is an appeal against conviction and sentence. The appellant pleaded not guilty to, but was convicted of rape as defined in s 65 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23]. He was sentenced to 15 years imprisonment of which two years imprisonment was suspended for five years on the usual condition of good behaviour, leaving an effective imprisonment term of 13 years. More
The plaintiff is a self-actor. This is a claim for personal delictual damages which plaintiff suffered arising from a traffic accident. A default judgment had been entered against both defendants for their failure to file a plea; leading to the matter being referred to the unopposed roll for the assessment of damages. More
“IT IS DECLARED AND ORDERED THAT;
1. The applicant Robert Kagandi is a registered joint holder of mining rights, title and interests in the mining location which constitutes Coronation 2 Mine, Masvingo (registration number 5244) by virtue of being a member of Enfield Syndicate.
2. The applicant, Robert Kagandi has legal rights to conduct mining operations within the mining location named Coronation 2 Mine (registration number 5244) situated partly on Bruceham Farm (6 hectares) partly on Victoria Park Farm (1 hectare) approximately 137 metres Norton of Coronation School and approximately 500 metres North East of trig Beacon 475/T Re. Pegs... More
The applicant seeks the following Order.
“TERMS OF THE 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. That the first respondent or any person acting on his behalf for the purpose of furthering the interests of the first respondent be and are hereby ordered to refrain from in any way interfering with the applicant’s possession or occupation of Coronation 2 situated approximately party (sic) on Bruceham Farm (6 Hectares) party (sic) on Victoria Park Farm (1 Hectare) approximately 137m North of Coronation... More
Appellant filed his notice of appeal on the 2nd August 2022. Respondent filed its notice of response on 12th August 2022. Then appellant filed an answering affidavit on the 24th August 2022. Respondent argued that the answer was improperly filed. Rule 19 of the Labour Court Rules SI. 150/17 provides for an appeal and response thereto. It does not provide for an answering affidavit by the appellant. On that basis the answer was improperly filed. Appellant sought to get around this hurdle by seeking condonation by this Court. Indeed the Court can condone departure from the Rules in terms of... More
Appellant appealed to this Court against his dismissal from employment by Respondent. The appeal is provided for by section 92D of the Labour Act Chapter 28:01. The grounds of appeal were initially two-fold. However upon challenge by respondent, this Court struck off the second ground. More
Plaintiff in this matter seeks an order directing the first defendant to transfer all rights, title and interest in the subdivided piece of land being portion of stand 132 of Prospect measuring 2350 square metres and an order interdicting first defendant from alienating her rights, title and interest in the said property to any other person than the plaintiff till this matter is determined and costs. More
The appeal in the matter is against the minimum mandatory sentence imposed on the appellant for illegal possession of gold in contravention of s 3 (1) as read with s 36 of the Gold Trade Act, [Cap 21:03].(“the Gold Trade Act,”) (“the Act”). More
I would not have composed a written judgment but for the need to clear the confusion within the applicant’s misunderstanding of procedure to assert his liberty rights. The background to the applications B 1725/20 and B 1892/20 is as follows.
The applicant was convicted by the regional magistrate sitting at Harare on 4 October, 2017 on four counts of rape. Consequent on the conviction, the applicant was sentenced to fifty years imprisonment. Ten years of that sentence was suspended for five years on conditions of future good behavior. The effective sentence imposed was therefore forty years imprisonment. The applicant noted... More
I heard this matter on 16 September 2021. I delivered an ex tempore judgment in which I:
(i) dismissed the defendant’s exception and directed the plaintiff to file and serve his amended summons and declaration upon the defendant within ten (10) working days of the date of this order;
(ii) dismissed the defendant’s special plea of prescription;
(iii) upheld the defendant’s special plea of res judicata only to the extent of the plaintiff’s claim for $ 50 000 and dismissed the same in respect of his claim for $ 30 000 – and
(iv) ordered that costs be in the... More
This is an application for review and an appeal against the decision of the Respondent’s Company’s appeals Board which confirmed the Appellant/Applicant’s dismissal following allegations of wilful disobedience to a lawful order and being absent from work for more than 5 days in a year without lawful excuse. More
Appellant was the chairman of the Workers Committee (WC) of Chemplex Holdings Ltd and its subsidiaries including respondent. He also worked for respondent as a machine operator. Respondent carried out an exercise to avoid retrenchment. One of the measures considered was putting employees on short time. The employees were aggrieved by the measures. They appealed to this court under reference LC/H/278/13. They were represented by their trade union (tu). More
This is an application in terms of Order 49 rule 449(1) (a) of the High Court Rules, 1971 (Rules). This rule provides that the court or a judge may, in addition to any other power it or he may have, mero motu or upon the application of any affected party, correct, rescind, or vary any judgment or order that was erroneously sought or erroneously granted in the absence of any party affected thereby. Applicants seeks an order drawn in the following terms:
1. The default judgment granted on the 9th June 2016, be and is hereby set-aside.
2. The notice... More
The background to the seeking of these inelegantly couched and long-winded orders is this: -
The applicant obtained a loan from the 2nd respondent which he secured by registering a mortgage bond against the immovable property described herein. The debt was not paid as per agreement and the 2nd respondent successfully obtained judgment against the applicant, which judgment declared the immovable property executable. The 3rd respondent subsequently sold the immovable property at a judicial sale and the 1st respondent was declared the highest bidder. A purported request to have the sale set aside in terms of the then rule 359... More
