This is an application for review in terms of Order 35 of this Court’s rules 1971 as amended. The applicant seeks a review of the proceedings held under the 1st respondent at Zvishavane Magistrates’ Court. Review is sought on the following grounds;
“1. That 1st respondent did not properly apply his mind to the matters before him.
2. That applicant who was a lay person was denied a right to be heard.” More
The second applicant is the Managing Director of the first applicant. The first applicant is a Laboratory established in terms of the laws of Zimbabwe and both applicants deal with the people’s health and lives. The first respondent (HEALTH PROFESSIONS AUTHORITY-ZIMBABWE) (HPA) is a statutory body created in terms of the Health Professions Act [Chapter 27.19] and regulates the affairs of the applicants. The second respondent is an official cited in in his official capacity as the person entrusted with execution of the order by the first respondent. More
The first and second respondent were employed by the appellant on contracts without limit of time as cashiers stationed in Bulawayo from 26 March 2006 and 7 July 2008, respectively. They operated from GV-L Service Station.
Sometime in July 2015, the appellant decided to pull out of GVL Service Station and entered into discussions with Zuva Petroleum. It was then agreed that the appellant would move out of GVL Service Station on 30 September 2015 and that Zuva Petroleum would take over four forecourt cashiers.
Following the agreement between the appellant and Zuva Petroleum, Zuva agreed to take on the... More
This is a matter within which the plaintiff is claiming damages for loss of support owing to the death of her husband at the defendant’s instance. On 23 December 2016, the plaintiff’s husband was electrocuted and died after he unwittingly stepped on live electricity wiring. The wiring had been left exposed by the defendant company and thus posed a danger to any person who would have used the public path it lay across. After the defendant’s accident, the defendant’s employees were forced to switch off wires from their nearby electricity feeder station in order to remove the deceased’s body from... More
1. On 15 February 2019, the Administrative Court issued an order dismissing with costs, an appeal by the appellant against the decision of the first respondent directing the second respondent to award a tender to the third respondent. More
On 24 January 2017 I heard this application and delivered an ex tempore judgment dismissing it with costs. I have now been asked for the written reasons which I do hereby furnish. More
Kojo Malcom Parris (“Parris”) intended to sell his house in Harare. He instructed an acquaintance, June Mossdorf, (“Mossdorf”) of Fox & Carney Estate Agents to market the immovable property for him. He was by that time resident in South Africa. Mossdorf found the plaintiffs with whom she negotiated and agreed on a possible sale. The plaintiffs paid a deposit to Mossdorf. When she asked Parris to instruct his lawyers to draw the necessary papers, he refused. She instructed his lawyers to proceed with the sale as she believed a binding contract of sale was in existence. The lawyers refused to... More
This is an urgent chamber application wherein applicant is seeking that a provisional order be granted on the following terms:
“that the first respondent or any person acting on behalf of first and second respondents be and is hereby interdicted from disputing, stopping or occupying SCRAI A Acturus, without any lawful authority or a Court Order or until the finalization of the appeal presently before the first respondent.” More
The first respondent approached the court a quo by way of an application seeking an interdict against the appellant and the second respondent barring them from entering its farm in Arcturus, Goromonzi and from laying any rights to a certain mining claim situated thereon. The first respondent also sought an order that the appellant and the second respondent stop all mining operations at the mining claim. In its founding affidavit deposed to by one Morrison Bimbi, the first respondent averred as follows: It was the owner of a certain piece of land called the remainder of Lot 4 of the... More
The applicant approached this court on an urgent basis seeking the relief for leave to execute judgment pending appeal. In particular, the draft order for the applicant reads as follows:
“1. Application for leave to execute an order pending appeal is hereby granted;
2. The order granted in the applicant’s favour under HC 6560/21 shall be operational pending determination of 1st respondent’s appeal in SC 460/21;
and
3. The 1st respondent shall bear costs of suit on attorney-client scale.”
I will start by giving the summary of the case. On 24 November 2021, the applicant obtained, before this court, provisional... More
This judgment on the merits is a sequel to SDC Ltd v Commissioner General-Zimbabwe Revenue Authority HH 648/18, which dismissed all the preliminary points raised by the appellant in this appeal. The real questions for determination in this appeal are firstly, whether the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development Transfer Pricing Guidelines for Multi-National Enterprises and Tax Administrations (OECD TPGs) were applicable in Zimbabwe during the 2009 to 2012 tax years, secondly whether the respondent Commissioner lawfully applied the general anti-avoidance provision (GAAP), s 98 of the Income Tax Act [Chapter 23:06] against the appellant by imputing royalties for the... More
This judgment deals with ten preliminary points in respect of the applicability of s 98 of the Income Tax Act [Chapter 23:06] general anti-avoidance provisions, GAAP, that were raised by the appellant against the additional assessments issued against the appellant by the respondent on 22 July 2015 for the tax years 2009 to 2012. More
