This is a court application by 163 applicants seeking a declaratory order in the following terms:
“IT IS ORDERED AS FOLLOWS:
1. It is declared that the agreements of sale which were entered into between the applicants and the 1st respondent represented by the 2nd respondent be and are hereby held to be valid.
2. The 1st respondent pays costs of this application on a legal practitioner and client scale.” More
This is an application brought on an urgent basis for what can be loosely termed as an “anti-dissipation” interdict. The applicant seeks to have her estranged husband (the first respondent) barred from disposing of any of the assets acquired by the two of them during the currency of their union pending the outcome of an action which she has since mounted for an equitable sharing of those assets. This latter claim was brought under case number HCMSF 80/24. More
The 3 applicantsthrough an urgent chamber application seek interim relief for all mining operations at Golden Hill Mine Mashavato be suspended barred or prohibited. Further that in pursuance of the above that applicants are authorised to hire and deploy at the said mine security guards to ensure compliance with the order suspending barring or suspending mining operations at the said mine. More
On 31 May 2022, after hearing oral submissions by counsels, I dismissed the applicant’s application with costs on a higher scale in an extempore judgment. The applicant has asked for written reasons following the noting of an appeal. The following are the reasons. More
This matter was dealt with as a special case in terms of R52 of the High Court Rules of 2021. The dispute relates to the construction of a fuel station commonly called a service station. More
This court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision of NEC for Engineering Industry. The applicant is dissatisfied with the decision and seeks to approach the Supreme Court. This is therefore an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court in terms of section 92 F of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01].
The facts in this matter are largely common cause. The respondent and applicant were embroiled in a labour dispute which culminated in it being referred to conciliation. The result was that the parties agreed to resolve this dispute and the respondent was reinstated. The respondent was made... More
This is an appeal against an arbitral award which awarded payment of gratuity, cash in lieu of leave and underpayment of salaries in favour of respondent. More
This is an appeal against an arbitral award in terms of which the appellant was ordered to pay a total of $57 391-59 to the respondents to meet underpayment of wages covering the period February 2009 to June 2012. The award was granted on 18 December 2012.
The factual background to the dispute is that the respondents were employed by the appellant; in various capacities, for a period stretching from November 1987 to the time of the arbitral award. However, seven of the respondents were employed by the appellant up to June 2012, the time of their dismissal, while the... More
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
