Sometime in or around November 2015 and at Harare the plaintiff and the defendant entered into an agreement in terms of which the defendant agreed to repair and fit 3 500 seat holding brackets at the plaintiff’s Rainbow Towers Hotel and Conference Centre. The total cost of repairing and fitting the 3 500 seat brackets was quoted by the defendant at US$50 015.00. More
The appellant appeals against the whole judgment of the Labour Court sitting at Harare, being judgement LC/H/74/17 handed down on 10 February 2017. More
This matter has its dispute steeped in oral African Customary principles of succession concerned with the nomination and appointment of the fourth defendant as headman Mubaiwa which the plaintiff is challenging, arguing that he is the rightful candidate to be declared headman of the Mubaiwa people. More
The facts of this matter are that on 27th June 2012 the Appellant phoned the Acting Sergeant Major and advised that he was not feeling well.
On 28th June 2010 he phoned again the same officer and said he had to travel to Bulawayo on an emergency as his uncle was unwell. Appellant advised his superior that he would be sending a letter.
When the Acting Sergeant Major discussed with the superior Nyamwisa he confirmed that he too had received a similar phone call from the Appellant and that they were waiting for the letter he had said he would... More
On the 31st May, 2013 this court issued a judgment whose order gave rise to this application for quantification of damages.
The order reads:-
“In the result, the appeal must succeed.
The Appellant is to be reinstated into his former position.
If reinstatement is no longer tenable the Appellant is to be paid damages for premature loss of his job.”
It is clear from this order that retrospectivity was not intended. More
This is a contested application for leave to execute pending Appeal. In brief, there has been an ongoing legal battle between the applicant and first respondent over an immovable property, stand 295, Northwood Township 2 of Submenu, measuring 4049 square meters. The second and third respondents are only cited in their official capacities.
Applicant claims that he fully purchased the property from the respondents, sometime in 2013, but is being precluded from having undisturbed enjoyment of the same by the first respondent. First Respondent, on the other hand, is challenging the sale as fraudulent and unsanctioned, as he has always... More
The delay in handing down this judgment is much regretted especially in view of the order that I make.
This is an appeal and cross -appeal against a judgment of the High Court handed down on 25 April 2018. In the judgment, the court a quo found for the first and second respondents and declared the first respondent the owner of certain immovable property in Mt Pleasant, Harare up to 22 November 2017 and the second respondent the owner of certain property in Avondale, Harare. More
The appellant employed by the respondent as a buyer. He was found to have caused the purchase of some equipment without following the appropriate process. In the result the equipment which was purchased cost the respondent substantially more than had the appropriate process been followed. More
This is an appeal against a judgment of the Magistrates Court (the court a quo) dismissing an application by the appellant for the correction of an order of that court.
The appeal is opposed by the respondent.
The material background facts to the matter are as follows: The appellant instituted a claim by way of summons against the respondent in the court a quo claiming payment of a sum of US$36 460.00 together with interest thereon at the prescribed rate, collection commission and attorney-client costs. More
This is a claim for contractual damages brought by the plaintiff against the defendant. The plaintiffs’ claim is founded on contractual damages and arise out of breach of contract. The plaintiff claims a total of US$250, 000.00 in damages. More
In this action the agreed issues for determination are listed as
follows:-
“1. Whether or not there was a valid Agreement of Sale between the
plaintiff and the first defendant.
2. Whether or not the Agreement of Sale was void and contrary to
Section 44 of the Stamp Duties Act [Cap 23:09].
3. Whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to transfer of the property in
question.” More
There is a banker and client contractual relationship between the parties. The plaintiff (Ramatex) sued the defendant (ACL) for general damages in the sum of US$998 960.00. The circumstances giving rise to the claim are partly common cause. There are 3 issues identified and agreed to by the parties for determination at this trial. These are;
(a) Whether or not ACL submitted the application for the registration of Ramatex’s blocked funds on or before the 30 April 2019 deadline;
(b) Whether the registration of the legacy debt failed as a result of the late submission of the application of the... More
This is an appeal against a judgment of the High Court dated 27 July 2016, in which the court dismissed an application by the appellant seeking to set aside a sale in execution conducted by the second respondent in the execution of a writ of execution for the payment of a debt due to the first respondent. More
On the 16th May 2013, the Arbitrator issued an award dismissing Appellant from Respondent’s employment. It is this dismissal penalty Appellant is taking issue with before this Court. More
