On 25 August 2008, the plaintiffs issued summons out of this court claiming from the defendants the sum of US$3 872 123-00 together interest thereon at the rate of 6% p.a. capitalized monthly and calculated from 1 February 2001 to date of payment in full. It was alleged in the plaintiffs’ declaration that the debt claimed arose from certain advances and loans made to the defendants by the plaintiffs at the defendants’ special instance and request during the period 1 February to 9 November 2001. It was further alleged that the total sum advanced and lent to the defendants amounted... More
This is an appeal against the decision of the Respondent’s Works Council internal appeal level where Appellant’s guilty verdict was upheld and the dismissal penalty was confirmed.
Facts of the case are that, Appellant was found guilty and dismissed from work on charges of negligently carrying out his stock control duties on 11 and 15 November 2011 in contravention of the Respondent’s code of conduct. In particular, it was alleged that on the said dates, he negligently corrected the number of scuds crates which had been noted to be different from what was physically going out with the driver. He... More
This matter, an application for condonation of late noting of an application for review was brought for my consideration in chambers. There was no response filed by 5 July 2016 when I considered the application.
I dismissed the application. The applicant has requested reasons for my ruling. These are they.
I found that the delay in noting the application was inordinate. The applicant was discharged from service on 8 October 2007. He became aware of the discharge in October 2007 but only filed the current application on 18 May 2016. The nine year delay is inordinate. More
In November 2017 the plaintiff (respondent in this application) instituted action against the defendant (the present applicant) claiming the payment of certain amounts of money due and payable in terms of a compromise agreement entered between the parties. The defendant has still not filed a plea. It has however filed two request for further particularity to the claim. This is an application to compel the furnishing of further particulars in terms of Order 21 Rule 141(b) of the High Court Rules, 1971. The last of such requests was filed on 29 November 2017 wherein the plaintiff insisted that the particulars... More
The Plaintiff issued summons against the 2 (two) Defendants jointly and severally out of this Court. It is seeking specific performance in the form of delivery of 4 (four) brand new Toyota Land Cruiser LC200 motor vehicles which they failed or neglected to deliver despite being paid. Alternatively, payment of a sum of US$633 257.00 payable in its equivalent in the local currency at the official rate being the purchase price for the 4 (four) motor vehicles in question. Leave to amend the claim to reflect the above claim was granted at the pre-trial conference. More
On the 28 November 2017 I granted the applicant’s application and my reasons thereof were as follows:
On the 7th November 2017 the applicants filed an urgent chamber application seeking an order that:
“Final relief More
After hearing both counsels in argument we allowed this appeal and indicated that our reasons for that decision will follow. These are the reasons. Appellant was charged with unlawful entry in aggravated circumstances as defined in s 131(2) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Cap 9:23]. After a contested trial, the appellant was found guilty as charged. He was thereupon sentenced to thirty-six months imprisonment of which twelve months suspended were on appropriate conditions. He appeals against both conviction and sentence. More
The record shows two actions that the appellant took, following the decision of the respondent’s Disciplinary Authority to dismiss her from employment. The Disciplinary Authority found the appellant guilty of misconduct in terms of the Labour (National Employment Code of Conduct) Regulations, S I 15 of 2006. More
The plaintiff is a duly registered housing co-operative. The defendants are all occupying the plaintiff’s administration block at Acorn Farm in Harare. The plaintiff issued summons against the defendants on 18 December 2014, for an order that they vacate its administration block. More
The applicant and the first andthird respondents are siblings born of the second respondent and the late Basheer Ahmed Ebrahim. The late Basheer Ahmed Ebrahim(hereinafter referred to as the deceased) died intestate on the 15thApril 2016 in China and left behind an Estate with various personal assets and various interests in some companies in Zimbabwe and SouthAfrica. At the time of deceased’s death applicant was in the UK. She thereafter came back in time for the holding of an edict meeting at which first respondent was appointed Executrix Dative with the consent of all the beneficiaries including applicant. More
This is an urgent chamber application in which the applicant seeks the following relief which is contained in the draft provisional order:
“FINAL ORDER SOUGHT
It is ordered that:-
1. The respondents in solidioum be and are hereby interdicted from entering into or sanctioning any sale or transferring, disposing (of?) or dealing in any other way with the property of the Estate Late Basheer pending judgment of this court in HC 2669/17.
2. Respondents to pay costs of suit. More
The appellant was employed by the respondent as a senior teller. Following suspicions that she disclosed confidential information to certain individuals. She was charged. She was charged with two acts of misconduct disclosing confidential information obtained in the course of one’s duties and violating safety rules or measures with serious consequences. The designated officer found her liable after considering the evidence and dismissed the appellant. Appellant appealed to the Mashonaland Local Joint Committee which upheld the decision of the Designated Officer. Dissatisfied by the decision appellant approached the Negotiating Committee on appeal. The Negotiating Committee upheld the dismissal of the... More
The plaintiff issued summons against the defendant claiming an order for eviction of the defendant and all those claiming occupation through him from stand number 7874 Belvedere Harare. The basis stated in the summons and declaration is that the defendant is in unlawful occupation of the property. His claim to occupation is based on the rights of a former owner whose agreement of sale over the property has since been cancelled. The defendant opposed the claim stating that he was in lawful occupation and that the plaintiff has no right to evict him. The joint pre-trial conference minute captured the... More
The dispute between the plaintiff and the defendants originated from a court action. The respondents purchased a certain residential piece of land situate in the Salisbury District called Stand 7929 Warren Park Township of Warren Park in terms of an agreement of sale signed on 11 February 2002. The purchase price for the property was ZWD 804,800-00 which amount was to be paid within 60 months with the initial deposit of ZWD 224,700-00 being due immediately upon signing the agreement. More
