This application is brought in terms of Rule 39 (4) (a) of the High Court Rules, 2021, and seeks the lifting of bar operating against it. The salient facts are that, on 3 October 1996, the applicant and the 2nd respondent entered into a notarial and prospecting contract and option agreement. In terms of the agreement, the applicant transferred its mining claims to the 2nd respondent. 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
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
