On 19 July 2006, the applicant obtained judgment in this Court in case No. HC 2433/2005 in the sum of $485 316 000. The order provided for interest in the following terms:
“Interest is due on the above amount at the prevailing overdraft interest rate as quoted by Stanbic Bank Limited.” More
This matter was filed in this court by way of urgent chamber application on 4 February 2008. After hearing the matter I dismissed the application without giving reasons. These are the reasons for my decision. The applicants were seeking the following interim relief: More
Plaintiff sued first, second and third defendants for payment of the sum of $251 694 plus interest and costs of suit on a legal practitioner and client scale. The claim against first defendant arises from a credit sale agreement which plaintiff’s avers was entered into by and between plaintiff and first defendant on or about 28 September 2012. More
At the close of the plaintiff’s case the second and third defendants made an application for an absolution from the instance on the basis that the evidence adduced is not such that the court might make a reasonable mistake and grant judgment in favour of the plaintiff against them.
The plaintiff’s case against the second and third defendants consistsinter alia of an application for rectification of a Suretyship agreement signed on 28 September 2012 in order to record a common intention of the parties that both the second and third defendants stood surety as co-principal debtors in favour of the... More
On 13 March 2012 the applicant filed an application in this court seeking the following relief:-
“It is ordered that;-
1. The security bond held in favour of the first respondent by the second respondent in the name of the applicant dated 1 October 2010 is hereby declared to be of no force or effect.
2. The second respondent shall upon being served with a copy of this order, immediately pay to the applicant $220 000 (two hundred and twenty united states dollars) being the amount the second respondent held back in lieu of cashing the performance bond.
3. The... More
In action proceedings instituted before the High Court of Zimbabwe, the appellant, as plaintiff, sought an order against the respondent for payment of damages in the sums of US$100,000 for malicious prosecution and US$300,000 for malicious arrest and detention. At the close of the plaintiff’s case, the respondent, as defendant, applied for absolution from the instance. The High Court found for the respondent and, consequently, granted absolution from the instance, with the appellant paying the costs of suit. It is against that order that an appeal has been noted to this Court. More
At the centre of this application is a minor child called Michelle Deborah Mwenje. Her right to academic freedom as enshrined in s 61 (1) (c) of the Constitution stands threatened and at risk of being breached by squabbles between the applicant and the respondents. More
The appellant was employed on a fixed term contract. The contract expired and was renewed. After its renewal, the appellant was fired allegedly for incompetence, needless to say this decision to terminate the contract of employment was unlawful as it did not comply with the provisions of Labour Act [Chapter 28:01] Section 12 B (2) which provides that;
“an employee is unfairly dismissed – More
The applicant approached this court seeking an order in the following terms:
“1. The first, second respondents and any other directors, shareholders, officers, employees, security personnel and/or agents of the third, fourth and fifth respondents are ordered to refrain from conducting the third, fourth and fifth respondents’ affairs in a manner that is oppressive and unfairly prejudicial to the applicant’s interests and consequently are ordered to refrain from harassing or interfering with the Applicant directly or indirectly in his capacity as a member, shareholder and Managing Director of the first respondent. More
Applicant applied to this Court for condonation of late filing of an appeal. Respondent opposed the application. The intended appeal is against the judgement of the Court referenced LC/H/171/19. The judgment is dated the 14 June 2019. This application was filed on the 22nd January 2020. Thus the extent of the delay in filing the appeal is almost 6 (six) months. I consider that to be an inordinate delay. The Applicant’s attorney stated that the delay is not inordinate. Applicant was requiredto seek leave to appeal within 21 days, but didso 5-6 months later. I consider it is disingenuous to... More
This urgent chamber application was placed before me on 15 August 2011. After perusing the papers, I endorsed thereon, on the same date:
“The papers do not establish how or when the urgency arose. The matter is not urgent”. More
The background to this matter as gleaned from the papers filed of record is that on 25 August 2017 the City of Bulawayo (Council) allocated the applicant 198 stands in Pumula South Phase iii, and that stand number 15520 is one of the 198 stands. On 9 November 2021 the applicant sold stand 15520 to one Milidza Moyo (Moyo). On the other hand, on 25 March 2021 first respondent (Dube) obtained a court order in HC 2039/20, in the main compelling the third and fourth respondent (Exceed Construction and Mharadze) to construct a two roomed house at stand number 15520... More
This is an opposed application for the upholding of a special plea, raised as a plea in abatement to the plaintiff’s summons and declaration filed on 18 June 2020 in the case bearing the same case number.
The summarized facts are that, the plaintiff, issued summons commencing action for the recovery of the sum US850, 000.00 or its equivalent in Zimbabwean dollars at the prevailing inter-bank rate, which he had paid as security deposit in terms of a lease agreement entered with the defendant. Both parties are duly incorporated companies. It is common cause that the defendant is a Company... More
This is an appeal against the decision of the designated authority which upheld the Appellant’s dismissal at his workplace.
The basic facts of the case are that Appellant was dismissed on 22/07/2011 following a hearing into allegations that he had contravened section (4) (h) of Statutory Instrument 165/92 (gross incompetence inefficiency in the performance of his work)
The charges in question arose from the fact that certain bearings which had been under his care and custody had been discovered to be missing following a stock take by his superiors. Further to that various other items which were also kept at... More
