This matter was placed before me on a certificate of urgency in terms of Rule 242 of the High Court Rules as amended. I dismissed the application with costs because of the preliminary issues raised. The applicant has requested written reasons for my decision. These are they. More
On 21 October, 2019 at around 17:30 hours, the applicant was driving a public service vehicle, a Toyota Hiace registration number ABJ 4962 along Simon Mazorodze road, on the outer lane of the road. When he reached Mbare Police District Headquarters, the accused person knocked down the deceased, a 6 year old boy who was crossing the road from west to east. The deceased died soon after the impact. The State charged the applicant with culpable homicide and alleged that the applicant was negligent in one or more of the following particulars of negligence More
In a nutshell the dispute arose over a beneficiaries’ sharing agreement entered into by members of the Chigumba Family after the death of the head of the family Stanslas Tonderayi Chigumba (the deceased). The deceased passed on on 11 December 2006. The beneficiaries sharing agreement was entered into on 29 May 2018. The dispute is essentially between Richard Kudzanai Chigumba (the applicant in the main case) and Taurai Cliff Chigumba (the first respondent in the main case). In the counter application Taurai Cliff Chigumba is the applicant while Richard Kudzanai Chigumba is the first respondent. For expediency I will refer... More
The applicants were arraigned before the magistrates’ court facing one count of contravening section 134 of the Criminal Law Codification and Reform Act [chapter 9.23], extortion. It was alleged that on 6 February 2009, they unlawfully obtained a vehicle from the complainant by threatening that he would be detained in police cells if the applicants were not paid the sum of $4 000-00. Both applicants denied the charge but were convicted after trial. They were each sentenced to five years imprisonment with one year suspended for five years on condition of future good behaviour. Dissatisfied with both the conviction and... More
The applicants filed an application for review seeking an order nullifying the sale of a property being Stand 1249 Rugare Township, Harare which was sold in the administration of the Estate Late Shingirai MamutseDR No. 1421/15. At the conclusion of the parties’ submissions on points raised in limineI handed down an extempore judgment dismissing the application with costs on a legal practitioner and client scale. More
The applicant approached this court on a certificate of urgency seeking an interim interdict and on the return date a final order.
The background facts are that the applicant has been engaged in protracted litigation with first and second respondents over Dana A Farm, Goromonzi. The dispute has been in this court, in the Supreme Court, the Lands Commission and before fourthrespondent. More
The applicant is an ex-employee of the respondent. A dispute between the applicant and the respondent was referred for arbitration. On 28 June 2012, Justice Smith issued an arbitral award in favour of the applicant. More
Respondent having failed to show good cause why it did not comply with Rule 15 (2) (b) of this Court’s Rules Statutory Instrument 59 of 2006, this matter proceeded in terms of Rule 22(b) (i).
On the issue of the legal persona of the other Appellants as cited on the notice of appeal, Appellants’ representative could not make any meaningful submission indicating that the Court should make the decision on it. More
This is an urgent application wherein applicant at the hearing of the matter, raised a point in limine to the effect that the 2nd respondent’s papers should be expunged from the court record and the matter be dealt with as unopposed because the notice of opposition failed to comply with Rule 58 (2) (c) where it is provided that, “Every written application and notice of opposition shall:- Give an address for service which shall be within a radius of ten kilometres from the registry in which the document is filed.” More
In this urgent chamber application the applicants seek the following provisional 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. The mining certificate of registration number 37266 issued in favour of first respondent and the said certificate’s predecessors and successors be and are hereby declared to be null and void ab initio.
2. Fourth, fifth and sixth respondents, their agents, appointees or any persons acting in their place and stead shall not issue any mining licence, prospecting licence, permit... More
This is an application for dismissal for want of prosecution of the main matter which is HC 1627/20. The application is made in terms of Rule 236 (4) of the High Court Rules 1971.
The chronology of events is that on the 23rd of September 2020, the respondents instituted a court application in HC 1627/20 and the application was opposed on 2 October 2020. That on 4 November 2020 the applicant in that matter filed an answering affidavit. That in terms of Rule 236 (4) of the High Court Rules 1971, where the applicant would have filed an answering affidavit... More
The appellant’s son one Scott Norman, now deceased andherein after referred to as the deceased owned a cabin cruise boat known as Wandering Star. Before his demise thedeceased entered into a written storage contract with the respondent on 23 November 2009.
In terms of the agreement the respondent was required to provide a shed for the storage of the boat. Clause 3 of the agreement set out the payment of rent modalities. Overdue amounts would attract interest prevailing at the time based on the prime rate levied by Barclays Bank Zimbabwe Limited. More
The respondent in this matter raised preliminary points which were partly successful. It sought to appeal to the Supreme Court but that Court declined jurisdiction at that stage preferring to have the matter referred back to this Court. More
This is an appeal against the decision by the respondent’s appeals tribunal which upheld the decision to find the appellant guilty of acts of misconduct and to dismiss him from employment. When the matter was initially set down, there were preliminary points raised which were disposed of by the Court see order number LC/H/ORD/347/2022. The appellant was grieved and sought leave to appeal against the Court’s decision to the Supreme Court. Leave was granted and the matter was referred to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court declined to deal with the appeal at that juncture preferring to deal with the... More
The issues for determination in this appeal against an arbitral award are;
“whether or not the claim by the Appellant had prescribed by the time it was referred to a Labour Officer”
It is not disputed that on 24 June 1999 the Appellant was suspended from his work place. On 22 December 1999 he was dismissed.On 10 March 2000 the matter was referred to the Review Board. The Appellant requested for the transcript to enable him to prepare his grounds for review. The transcript was availed to the Appellant on or before 26 July 2000. More
