This is an application for rescission of judgment made in terms of Rule 449 (1) (a) of the High Court Rules 1971. Rule 449 (1) (a) reads as follows:
“449. Correction, variation and rescission of judgments and orders
(1) The court or a judge may, in addition to any other power it or he may have, meru
moto or upon the application of any party affected, correct, rescind, or vary any
judgment or order –
(a) that was erroneously sought or erroneously granted in the absence of any
party affected thereby; or” More
The appellant was employed by respondent as a Lecturer at Belvedere Technical Teachers’ College. Following allegations that appellant conducted income generating projects using respondent’s resources but failed to account for the money he received, he was charged on five (5) counts. Three of the charges related to the income generating projects, the fourth charge was for using an unofficial receipt book to receipt the money he received and the fifth charge was for receiving the said money when it was not in line with his duties as a lecturer. He was found liable and dismissed. More
The appellant was employed as an accountant by the respondent’s engineering division.
He was arraigned before a disciplinary committee for acts of misconduct. He was found guilty of unsatisfactory work performance. He was dismissed.
This appeal is against the decision to find him guilty and to dismiss him. But in heads of argument filed in appellant’s behalf, the issue of conviction is not argued it may be that the appellant had decided to abandon it and merely base his appeal on challenging the penalty imposed. More
The applicant a male adult aged 22 years is facing a charge of murder in contravention of s47 (1) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23]. He applied for his release on bail pending trial in this court. The state opposed the application sought.
It alleged that on 2 September 2022 the 3 year old deceased who was residing with the applicant and his family, messed herself up without telling the applicant or his wife that she wanted to use the toilet. Angered by this, the applicant assaulted the deceased using a leather belt all over her... More
The appellant appeared before a Regional Magistrate sitting at Gweru facing three counts. The first count is contempt of court as defined in section 182(1) (2) (e) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23]. The second and third counts are attempted murder as defined in section 189 as read with section 47 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23]. On the first count the learned Regional Magistrate found the appellant guilty and imposed a fine of $300 or in default of payment 3 months imprisonment. In counts 2 and 3 appellant was found guilty... More
This is an application for bail pending trial which was only filed on 15 March 2012 when the applicant and his co-accused were arrested on 12 September 2010. The applicant says he once filed a bail application but withdrew it. More
This is an application for condonation of late filing an application for review. In order for an application of this nature to succeed, the application must show:
a. the extent of the delay
b. a reasonable explanation for the delay.
c. prospects of success should the matter go on review.
See ChigovanyikavDairiboard Zimbabwe Ltd & Anor SC 121/04
And as far as review matters before this court are concerned, they should satisfy the requirements of section 92 EE, of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01] (the Act). The section provides that the grounds on which a matter is brought on review... More
The appellant was employed as a Senior Accountant in the Department of Research and Specialist Services under Ministry of Agriculture, Mechanisation Irrigation Development. He was initially discharged from service in March 2009 following a disciplinary hearing. After an appeal to the Labour Court the decision of Public Service Commission was set aside. The respondent was directed to reinstate appellant and conduct a re-hearing. He was on 26 March 2012 again discharged from service after he was found guilty of an act of misconduct in terms of section 44 (2) (a) of the Public Service Regulations 2000 as read with paragraphs... More
1. This is an application for my recusal. The brief facts of this matter are that an application for rescission of judgment was placed before me and it was set down for the 18 October 2022. On the 17 October 2022, Muvingi & Mugadza Legal Practitioners (respondent’s legal practitioners) addressed a letter to the Registrar of this court ostensibly indicating that I ought to recuse myself from the hearing of the application for rescission of judgment. More
This is an application for rescission of a judgment granted under case number HC 13281/12, brought in terms of Order 9, Rule 63 of the High Court Rules 1971. At the hearing of the matter, I dismissed the application with costs and indicated that my reasons for so doing would follow. These are the reasons: More
This is an application for quantification of damages awarded to the applicant. Applicant had been dismissed from employment on 11 April 2014 following a disciplinary hearing on misconduct. After the dismissal applicant appealed to the Appeals Officer and the appeal was dismissed. Applicant further appealed to the National Employment Council for the Chemicals and Fertilizers Manufacturing Industry (NEC). The NEC Appeals Committee upheld the appeal and ordered respondent to reinstate applicant without loss of wages and benefits from the date of dismissal. In the alternative parties were to negotiate damages in lieu of reinstatement. In the event of failure to... More
: The application before the courts for Bail pending Trial. The brief history of the matter of necessity has to be highlighted. The applicants were indicated for trial before this court and their trial was set to commence on 30 July 2012 under case HC 115/2012. On 30 July 2012 the trial did not kick off as the applicants and the state had sought to discuss a statement of agreed facts on a possible plea of culpable homicide. On 01 August 2012 the state withdraw charges in respect of the applicant’s co accused. Relying on a statement of agreed facts... More
This is an opposed application wherein the applicant seeks the following relief:
“IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1. The respondent and all those claiming occupation through her shall vacate stand number 3414 Mainway Meadows, Waterfalls, Harare within (7) days of this order, failing which the Deputy Sheriff is authorised and directed to evict the respondent and all those claiming occupation through him (sic).
2. The respondent shall pay for the costs of this application on a higher scale of legal practitioner and client scale”. More
On 25 March 2020 respondent approached the Magistrate court with an ex parte application for a peace order and interdict. In his founding affidavit applicant contended that he was authorised to stay at Fairhelme Farm known as Sendekera Farm by the then Resident Minister for Manicaland Mandiitawepi Chimene after paying US$25 000. The respondent had been trying to forcefully evict him. In 2017 appellant instituted proceedings under case No. 2225/17 as well as HC 691/18 and HC 164/18 but later on withdrew the summons. The government had indicated that both Mandiitawepi Chimene and a company formed by her had no... More
