Applicant filed this chamber application seeking that the application under cover of case number HC 2034/18; X-Ref. HC 166/18; X-Ref. HC 2005/17; X-Ref. HC 1355/16 be dismissed for want of prosecution, with costs on a legal practitioner and client scale and de bonis propriis. This application was filed with this court on the 16 August 2019. On the 30 August 2019, respondents filed a notice of opposition, and opposing affidavits deposed to by the first and second respondents. More
MAKONESE J: This is an application for an order setting aside the ruling of the 4th respondent (hereinafter referred to as the Sheriff), wherein he upheld an objection raised by 1st to 3rd respondents to the confirmation of a sale of immovable property being Subdivision D of Stands 5, 6, 7 and 8 of Matsheumhlope, Bulawayo. Applicant further sought an order of this court directing the 4th respondent to cause the sale of the immovable property in question by way of private treaty to enable it to recover the full value of its judgment debt in terms of an order... More
This matter was initially placed before me under a certificate of urgency. As the final and interim relief sought on the provisional order were the same, I wrote an endorsement on the face of the application querying the manner in which the relief had been framed. The letter of explanation was not placed before me and it was not until after some months that the matter was then brought to my attention. In the event, it was set down before me in chambers to be argued as an urgent application. The respondents indicated a desire to file affidavits in opposition... More
This is an application for leave to appeal against the review judgment of HOVE J siting at the Labour Court at Harare on 5 December 2014. Aggrieved by the outcome of the review proceedings the applicant unsuccessfully applied for leave to appeal to this Court. More
1. This is an appeal against the judgment of the Labour Court handed down on 20 March 2015 dismissing with costs, an appeal by the appellant against an arbitral award in favour of the respondent. More
On 9 April 2021 the Plaintiff issued a summons out of this court claiming (a) An order for payment in the sum of US$ 135 931.36 or its ZWL$ equivalent at the prevailing rate on the date of payment being arrear rentals owed to the Plaintiff by the Defendant.
(b) An order for the cancellation of the lease agreement between the parties.
(c) An order for ejectment of the Defendant and anyone claiming occupation through him.
(d) An order for holding over damages at the rate of USD$ 433.00 per day starting from the 1st of May 2021 to the... More
This court allowed respondent’s appeal against the decision of applicant’s Appeals Officer. The applicant is dissatisfied with that decision and seeks to approach the Supreme Court. This is therefore an application for leave to appeal in terms of section 92 F of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01]. More
This is an appeal against an arbitral award that was handed down by Honourable P. Mutsinze on 11th September 2012. In terms of the award the Respondent’s suspension from employment was ruled to be unlawful, Appellant was ordered to reinstate the Respondent and institute fresh disciplinary proceedings. More
This is an application for condonation for late filing of a Notice of Response.
The Applicant was served with a Notice of Appeal on 21st May 2013. In the Notice of Appeal, the Respondent is challenging the decision of the Applicant company’s Appeals Officer, who confirmed Respondent’s dismissal from Applicant’s employment for misconduct. More
This is an application by the Applicant Company for interim relief in terms of Rule 34 of the Labour Court Rules. It is seeking the stay of the arbitral award which was made in favour of the Respondent employee and which it has now appealed against in the Labour Court. More
The brief background of this matter is that Respondent was employed by Appellant as a Kitchen Poter in October 2006. He rose through the ranks to become a Commis Cook at the time of his dismissal. In November 2008 the Respondent received a letter of suspension alleging that he had breached;
“Theft- Gross
Unlawful and intentionally appropriating property belonging to the company or in possession of the employer, other employee’s or guests with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it.” More
It is not the function of the courts to make a contract for the parties or to rewrite a contract entered into between the parties. Neither is it open to the courts to excuse any party to a contract from the imperatives of the contract they have freely and voluntarily accepted on the basis that it has become too onerous or oppressive. In addition, it is not allowed to read into the contract some implied or tacit term that is in direct conflict with its express terms. See Magodora & Ors v Care International Zimbabwe 2014 (1) ZLR 397 (S)... More
When this matter came up for hearing, the respondent’s legal practitioner argued that the record was not a true reflection of what had transpired during the hearing. More
: The Applicant in this matter is a company registered as such in terms of the company law of Zimbabwe. The first Respondent is the presiding officer who granted the warrant of search and seizure which is under review. The second to fourth Respondents are employees of the fifth Respondent. The fifth Respondent is a constitutional and public entity charged with the responsibility of investigating corruption. More
