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
MUSITHU J: Before the court is an application for rescission of a default judgment granted by this court in HCH 1748/24 on 19 June 2024. The application was made in terms of r 27(1) of the High Court rules, 2021. The first applicant’s founding affidavit was deposed to by the third applicant in his capacity as the authorised representative of the first applicant. The application was opposed by the first respondent. A notice of filing was issued and filed on behalf of the second and third respondents by the Civil Division of the Attorney General’s office. They indicated that they... 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
The matter was placed before me as an application for an order in terms of Section 93 (7) of the Labour Act [Cap 28:01]. Whereas initially the Applicants were three one of the Applicants withdrew his matter. The two Applicants before the court were Ranganayi Simon and Cosmas Bhasera.
In his founding affidavit the 1st Applicant, Ranganayi Simon averred on oath that; he was a former employee of the 1st Respondent. The 2nd Respondent is a Designated Agent for National Employment Council for the Food Industry. He was the conciliator in the two disputes that have given birth to the... More
This is an appeal against the judgment of the Labour Court dated 16 October 2016 in which the court a quo upheld the appellant’s conviction on a charge of improper association with his minor pupil by having sexual intercourse with her and giving her family planning tablets. Following his conviction on the above charge the appellant was dismissed from employment. Leave to appeal was granted by this Court on 24 March 2016 and condonation for late noting of appeal and extension of time within which to note the appeal was granted on 31 August 2017. More
1.This is an appeal against conviction only.
2.The appellant was convicted of impersonating a public official in contravention of s179 (1)(a) of the Criminal Law Code and of reckless driving as defined in s53(2) of the Road Traffic Act [Chapter 13:11] (the Act).
3.The two issues that arise in this appeal are these. First, whether the trial court’s factual finding that the appellant impersonated a public official defies reason and common sense. Second, whether the appellant’s admitted manner of driving amounted to reckless driving.
4.We find against the appellant on both issues. Consequently, we uphold the judgement rendered a quo.... More
This matter was placed before me as an appeal conjoined with an application for review. The determination by the Health Services Board was handed down on 22 October 2015. For convenience the Appellant/Applicant shall be referred to throughout as Appellant.
The material background facts to the matter are as follows;
The Appellant was employed by the 2nd Respondent as an Accounting Assistant. Hewas based at Kotwa Hospital. He was placed on suspension on the 4th of November 2013 to the 4th of February 2014 following allegations of misconduct more particularly, that he had failed to take reasonable care or account... More
On the 21st November 2023 this dismissed appeal’s appeal and upheld his dismissal from employment by respondents. The judgment was appealed to the Supreme Court which issued an order on 18th July 2024 in the following terms, More
The application placed before me is for quantification of backpays and benefits following the Applicant’s reinstatement into his original position. The application is filed in terms of section 89 of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01] as read with rule 14 of the Labour Court rules, 2017. More
The plaintiff seeks in this matter an order declaring as null and void an agreement of sale entered into by and between Kingdom Mutungwazi and Ezekiel Mtapuri in respect of an immovable property called Lot 3 of Zuvanyika measuring 5.3523 Morgen including what is described as a 16 rooms compound.
After the closure of the plaintiff’s case an application for absolution from the instance was made on behalf of the defendant. The application was dismissed with costs on 20 June 2009.
The trial resumed and after the closure of the defendant’s case the parties were directed to file written closing... More
