The applicant was on trial before the regional magistrate, Chinhoyi, for rape. He pleaded not guilty. Evidence was led against him. At the end of the case for the prosecution, an application for his discharge was made in terms of s 198(3) of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act, [Chapter 9:07], which provides as follows;
“198(3) If at the close for the case for the prosecution the court considers that there is no evidencethat the accused committed the offence charged in the indictment, summons or charge, or any other offence of which he might be convicted thereon, it shall return... More
This is an appeal against the determination of the respondent’s General Manager which confirmed the finding of gross negligence and a penalty of dismissal against the appellant.
The appellant was employed by the respondent as a driver for twenty-five years. On the day in question he was assigned the task of towing a 10 000 litre bowser containing water using a tractor. In the process the tractor broke into two. The appellant was subsequently charged of gross negligence in the execution of his duties in terms of Paragraph 8 of Group D (Serious Offences) of the respondent’s Code of Conduct.... More
This is an application in terms of which the Executor testamentary of the estate of the late Vitalis Musungwa Gava Zvinavashe seeks an order that the Minister of Justice Legal and Parliamentary Affairs appoint an inspector to investigate the affairs of first respondent (a company) in terms of s 158 (a) (ii) of the Companies Act [Chapter 24:03] on the basis that the applicant believes that the said company my have fraudulently and or oppressively conducted its affairs to the prejudice of the deceased estate. More
The matter was placed before me as an application for condonation for late filing of an appeal against the determination of the Designated Agent of the National Employment Council for the Mining Industry which determination was handed down on the 18th of May 2023. The application is filed in terms of Rule 22(1) of the Labour Court Rules, 2017. It is opposed. More
When the applicant files what he or she terms “application for condonation of late noting of appeal” that description of the application suggests that the applicant has noted an appeal late and applies that the late filing should be condoned. The position is that no valid appeal can be noted with such late noting being condoned by application made after the late noting of the appeal. In practice, this description of applications by applicants who are time barred from noting an appeal has somehow come to be accepted as the correct description of such applications. In my view an application... More
This case raises issues regarding minority rights in this country and one hopes, this judgment, in a way, will help spark a frank national conversation of these issues which we appear to have been shy or less enthusiastic to openly discuss.
[2] On 15 August 2014, the plaintiff who is a transgender issued process out of this Court seeking damages against the defendants.
The plaintiff’s claim was framed under different headings as stated hereunder:
“(i) Payment of $100 000.00 being damages for unlawful arrest.
(ii) Payment of $100 000.00 being damages for unlawful detention.
(iii) Payment of US$300 000.00 being... More
This is a court application in which the 2 applicants who are former members of the Central Intelligence Organisation (CIO) seek an order in the following terms:
“IT IS ORDERED THAT: More
The determination of urgency in this matter depends on the efficacy of applicable domestic remedies. Are the remedies concerned “effective, available and adequate” ? The remedies under examination are reposed in the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act [ Chapter 22:23] (“the Act”). More
On 5 July 2016, upon considering the record of proceedings, heads of argument and hearing oral submissions we upheld the appeal and made the following order:
“It is ordered that:
1. The appeal be and is hereby upheld.
2. The decision of the court a quo is set aside and substituted as follows:
(i) the respondent and all those claiming occupation through the respondent be and are hereby ordered to vacate from No. TT 2455 Madamombe Business Center Seke, Goromonzi within (21) days of the granting of this order.
(ii) the respondent shall pay the appellant’s costs.” More
The applicant was arraigned before a Regional Magistrate’s Court sitting at Bulawayo facing a charge of contravening section 65 of the Criminal Law Codification and Reform Act Chapter 9:23. He was convicted and sentenced to 15 years imprisonment of which 3 years were wholly suspended for 5 years on condition accused does not within that period commit any offence of a sexual nature. The State alleged that on a date unknown to the prosecutor but during the period extending from 2019 to 2020, and at house number 729 Jacaranda, Gwanda, the accused person had sexual intercourse with Precious Mpunzi, a... More
On 24 November 2010 I issued a Provisional Order under Case No HC 8153/10 in favour of the first, second and third respondents herein. The applicant, the fourth and fifth respondents and one Wonder Killian Jakalasi were the respondents therein. The applicant intends to note an appeal against the order granted and has approached me for leave to note the appeal. The respondents filed papers wherein they opposed the grant of leave sought and I therefore directed that the parties file heads of argument for my assistance. More
This is an appeal against the decision of the Appeals officer who upheld the decision of the Hearing Officer to dismiss the appellant from employment.
The brief facts of the matter are that appellant was employed by the Respondent as a Section Manager. He was charged for contravening section 4 (a) of the Labour (National Employment Code of Conduct) Regulations SI 15 of 2006. It was alleged that he swiped customers’ groceries using his own bank card and pocketed cash in United States Dollars that the customers would have brought to the Supermarket intending to pay for their purchases. By... More
CHITAKUNYE AJA: This is an opposed chamber application for condonation of non-compliance with the Supreme Court Rules, 2018 and for extension of time within which to appeal. Though at the outset the applicant did not state the rule that was not complied with and the rule under which this application is brought, it is apparent from the founding papers that the rule not complied with is r 38(1)(a) and the application is in terms of r 43(1) of the aforesaid rules. The intended appeal is against a judgment of the High Court handed down on 29 October 2020 upholding special... More
The three Defendants filed a special plea seeking dismissal of the Plaintiff’s claim. The Plaintiff issued summons seeking the following relief from the court:
1. An order declaring the agreement of sale between the Plaintiff and First Defendant to be valid and still operational.
2. An order declaring the agreement of sale that was entered into between the First, Second and Third Defendants to be null and void.
3. An order nullifying the transfer of title of land into the Third Defendant’s name.
4. Costs of suit. More
