TAKUVA J: This is an application for a declarateur against the respondent. Applicant seeks an order declaring that the respondent’s deduction of her health allowanceextended to her by the Ministry of Health and Child Care is illegal and unlawful. Further applicant seeks an ancillary order for the payment of all monies that have been deducted by the respondent to date. More
This is an opposed application wherein, applicants seek rescission of a default judgment of this court under case HC199/22, delivered on the 24th of November of the same year. It has been brought in terms of rule 29 (1) (a) of the High Court rules, 2021. The justification being that, applicants were interested parties with direct and substantial interest but were not made part to the lawsuit with adverse consequences. More
The Applicant (Respondent in main matter) submitted before mean application in terms of Rule 22(a) of the Labour Court rules, Statutory Instrument 59 of 2006. More
Respondent who had been employed by Appellant was dismissed from employment and successfully challenged his dismissal before an arbitrator. The arbitrator ordered his reinstatement without loss of salary and benefits with effect from the date of dismissal. Respondent alleges that he reported for duty but was denied entrance into Appellant’s premises and was told not to report for duty. He then approached the arbitrator for quantification of damages. More
The applicant and the respondent are embroiled in divorce proceedings in which the respondent is the plaintiff, and the applicant is the defendant. On the 10 January 2023, the applicant delivered a notice of intention to amend its plea which was objected to by the respondent on the 19th of January 2023. The amendments sought to be effected are set out as follows:
“A. By the addition of paragraph 6.3.1 to the defendant’s plea, which will read as follows:
6.3.1. As a result of the aforesaid, it would be just and equitable that she be awarded total ownership of the... More
This is an application for review brought in terms of section 27 of the High Court Act [Chapter 9;07] wherein the applicant seeks an order setting aside the decision of the Magistrates Court sitting at Chiredzi. The applicant avers that the decision should not be allowed to stand as it is gross unreasonable. In the impugned decision, the Magistrate, who was cited in this application as the 1st respondent, dismissed two related applications both of which were launched in that court by the applicant. More
The applicant and the respondent are duly incorporated companies, the applicant according to the laws of Lebanon, and the respondent according to the laws of Zimbabwe. The applicant avers that the respondent is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Mineral Marketing Corporation of Zimbabwe (MMCZ) a body corporate created by a statute of the same name, [Chapter 21:04]. The respondent averred on the contrary that it is wholly owned by the Ministry of Mines and not MMCZ. Nothing turns on the ownership of the respondent because of the nature of the relief sought. Suffice that there is no dispute regarding... More
This ruling is made pursuant to a preliminary objection raised by the third respondent’s counsel at the commencement of oral submissions in this matter. The preliminary point was concerned with the propriety of filing the record of proceedings required in terms of r 62(5) of the High Court rules, 2021 (the rules), on the eve of the hearing of this matter. More
This is one case where both parties did not seriously consider presenting their evidence in a clear and logical manner. The duty for coherence in the presentation of pleadings and evidence before the court lies with the parties. The court has no duty to fill pot holes in the evidence of parties. More
I reluctantly acceded to the request to provide written reasons for the order I had granted in this matter on 1 August 2018 after hearing arguments from Counsel. The reason for these was two fold. Firstly, I had given detailed ex tempore reasons for the order granted and indicated that if full written reasons were required such a request should be made timeously. The request was only made some three months later on 17 November 2018. Secondly, the request was being made by the respondents in whose favour I had made the order. It was not apparent to me why... More
The plaintiff company seeks the eviction of the defendant from 5 Windermere Road Strathaven in Harare (“the property”), holding over damages and costs of suit on a legal practitioner and client scale. More
DUBE-BANDA J:This is an application for bail pending appeal. The applicants, including one other individual who is not part of these proceedings, were arraigned before the court of the Magistrate on a charge of theft as defined in section 113 (1) (a) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23]. After a contested trial, the three were found guilty as charged. First applicant was sentenced to forty months imprisonment, six months suspended on the usual conditions and a further twelve suspended on condition of restitution. He remained with an effective prison term of twenty-two months. Second applicant was... More
At the onset of the appeal hearing the respondent raised a point in limine. It was to the effect that there was no proper respondent cited. The one cited “Ministry of Home Affairs” is a non-entity at law. It is not a natural person. Neither is it a legal persona. As such it cannot sue or be sued. There being no respondent, the matter must be struck off the roll.
The respondent opposed the point raised. They countered that the State Liabilities Act [Chapter 8:14] provides that the Minister responsible “may” be cited where it is intended to sue the... More
Following on the judgment of this Court handed down on 16 December, 2011 the operative part of which reads;
“1. The points in limine are hereby dismissed.
2. The application for quantification of damages is properly before the Labour Court. More
