This is a ruling on whether or not present application should be treated as urgent. The background thereto is that the parties entered into a contract for the hire and lease of an excavator. That relationship soured. Present respondent instituted rei vindicatio proceedings in this court. More
This is a court application for summary judgment in action proceedings commenced by the applicant against the respondents under case number HC 996/17. The applicant alleges that it sues on a liquid document and claims against the respondents jointly and severally, the one paying the other to be absolved. Applicant seeks payment of a sum of US$45 057,54 being the balance based on an acknowledgment of debt. The total amount allegedly due was originally a sum of US$60 770,00 in respect of a loan advanced by the applicant to 1st respondent. The 2nd, 3rd and 4th respondents jointly signed a... More
On 4 February 2019, the parties entered into a lease agreement in terms of which the applicant let its premises, known as Number 6 Cannock Gardens, Cannock Road, Mount Pleasant, Harare to the applicant. The applicant would pay monthly rentals to the respondent, in the sum of seventeen thousand five hundred South African Rand, payable on or before the first day of each month. Due to non-payment of rentals, the respondent demanded vacant possession of the premises from the applicant through a notice dated 28 April 2022. This was followed up by two more letters demanding that the applicant vacates... More
This is an Urgent Chamber Application for stay of Execution of a writ issued and obtained by the first respondent following a default judgment granted in its favour by this Honourable Court on 14 September 2022 in HC 5024/22. The stay is being sought pending finalization of an application for rescission pending in HC 7024/22.
The facts are that the applicant entered into a lease agreement for certain property known as 6 Cannock Gardens, Cannock Road, Mount Pleasant, Harare. The said lease was cancelled or otherwise terminated mutually and a new verbal lease agreement was entered into in or around... More
This is an appeal against a decision of the Administrative Court upholding the penalty imposed on the appellant by the respondent for the non-notification of a merger that it was a party to. More
This is the unanimous judgment of this Court. This is an appeal against the judgement of the High Court handed down on 20 July 2023 dismissing the appellant’s application to set aside an arbitral award and registering that award. More
On 28th May 2012 the Honourable H Muchinako made an arbitration award. In terms thereof he awarded Respondent back-pay, gratuity and an order of reinstatement in employment by Appellant. Aggrieved by the award, Appellant appealed to this Court. More
On 21 January 2019, the applicant and the first respondent concluded what they styled an “Export Finance Facility Agreement (“the Agreement”). In terms of the Agreement, the first respondent advanced to the applicant the sum of RTGS 5 100 000,00. The applicant was required to repay the loan facility in the sum of US$ 2 217 291.00. This amount would be realised from export sales of crops grown by the applicant. These are described in the Agreement as “exportables”. The repayment period was 5 years, running from 4 January 2019 to 31 January 2024. The Agreement provided for the deposit... More
I heard this application on 11 October 2017. At the close of submissions, I delivered an ex tempore judgment in which I dismissed the application with costs.
On 17 October 2017 the applicant’s legal practitioners addressed a letter to the registrar of this court. The letter reads, in part, as follows:
“We have been instructed to request as we hereby do the full judgment and reasons thereof.”
I set out hereunder the full judgment and the reasons for the same.
The applicant is a legal entity. It claims that it owns and operates a farm which is best described as... More
This is an application for direct access to this Court, filed in terms of s 167 (5) of the Constitution as read with R 21 of the Constitutional Court Rules, 2016. It is contested. If the application is granted, the applicant intends to file a substantive application with this Court, alleging that in dealing with a non-constitutional issue, the Supreme Court, (“ the court a quo”), violated its rights to be heard and to a fair hearing as guaranteed by s 69 (2) and (3) of the Constitution. More
This is an appeal against an arbitral award handed down on 22 April 2015, in terms of which the appellant was ordered to pay the respondent a total sum of US$25 500-00 as overtime.
The basic facts of this matter are common cause. The respondent was employed by the appellant as a Stock Controller. He held this position from March 2011 to November 2014, when he was dismissed from employment for misconduct. The circumstances leading to his dismissal are not the subject of this case.It suffices to state that after his dismissal, he lodged a complaint of non-payment of overtime,... More
This is an appeal against the decision of the Respondent to dismiss Appellant from employment.
The brief background of this matter is that Appellant was employed by the Respondent as a Manufacturer from 2004 to October 2012. The Appellant was suspended from employment on the 15th of October 2012 on a charge of breaching of Confidence involving company secrets. It was alleged that the Appellant deliberately divulged secrets to someone who was under investigation. It was alleged that Appellant sent a text message to Barbra about Nhamo’s suspension. A hearing was conducted and Appellant was dismissed. He made an internal... More
The 2 applicants are husband and wife who are seeking an order for the eviction of the first respondent, and all those claiming occupation through her, from stand 17405 Katanga Norton. The applicants state that they purchased a vacant stand from WinniePatimaKandengwa and Charles Aaron Kandengwa on 4 August 2008 and have referred to a sale agreement filed in HC 12070/11 a matter in which the first applicant sued the sellers, the second respondent and the Deputy Sheriff for transfer of right, title and interest in that stand. More
The nine appellants were convicted on their own plea of guilty to contravening section 368 (2) as read with s 368 (4) of the Mines and Minerals Act, [Chapter 21:05](“the Act”). Theywere each sentenced to the mandatory 2 years imprisonment. They appealed against conviction on the basis that they were convicted on a chargewhich was not supported by the facts admitted between them and the State. More
