This is an appeal against the whole judgment of the Gweru Magistrates court delivered on 20 April 2010 in which the court a quo inter alia granted sole custody of two minor children to the respondent without also granting appellant reasonable access, maintenance in respect of the appellant in the sum of $300,00 per month and a reciprocal protection order against both parties. More
On 18 November 2020, the parties in this matter signed a Consent Paper in which Respondent agreed that he would pay the applicant USD1200within 12 months of the grant of a divorce order. The money was proceeds of the sale of applicant’s vehicle which respondent admitted to have disposed of. On 10 December 2020 a decree of divorce was granted incorporating the consent paper. It is alleged that the respondent has refused or neglected to comply with the order. A writ of execution was issued following which the sheriff issued a nulla bona return. Summons for civil imprisonment were issued.... More
The applicant has approached this court on an urgent basis seeking interim relief interdicting the respondents from disposing of, transferring or selling house number 67 – 12th Crescent, Warren Park 1, Harare, a property which she occupies. She would also want the respondents to be interdicted from evicting her from the said property until such time that her appeal (CIV A217/08) against a decision of the magistrate court dividing that property between herself and her former customary husband, the second respondent, has been determined and her suits in HC 10803/12 and HC 10043/13 have been determined. More
An order of this court granted by consent on 8 November 2017 in Case No. 3185/17 following the signing of a deed of settlement by the parties to that action on 26 September 2017, has not been complied with. The applicants have therefore brought these contempt of court proceedings in a bid to enforce the court order. They desire that the first and second respondents, who should be the ones complying with the court order, be held in contempt of the court order and that a monetary penalty be imposed against the first respondent, being a company, while a terms... More
The applicant approached this court on a certificate of urgency, seeking leave to execute on the “ruling” of the second respondent dated 12 February 2008 in which he was granted a certificate for the ejectment of the first respondent from certain premises in Hatfield Harare. More
n this action the plaintiff makes the following claim:-
“(a)Payment in the sum of US$4500-00 (Four Thousand and Five hundred United States Dollars Only) being damages for shock, pain and suffering, unlawful arrest and detention of the plaintiff perpetrated by third, fourth and fifth defendants, who were all members of the Zimbabwe Republic Police (ZRP) acting within the course and scope of their employment with the first and second defendants thus rendering the latter vicariously liable for their employees’ actions. The third, fourth and fifth defendants are liable in their personal capacities.” More
This is an appeal against the judgment of the Labour Court sitting at Harare (the court a quo) delivered on 5 October 2023, dismissing the appellant’s appeal against the determination of the designated Appeals Officer of the respondent. The Appeals Officer dismissed the appellant’s appeal against the determination of the Disciplinary Authority which found the appellant guilty of misconduct and dismissed him from employment. More
The above appeals are all centred on the decision of the respondent refusing to allow as permissible deductions in terms of section 15(2)(gg) of the Income Tax Act [Cap 23:06] certain expenditures incurred by the appellants. To the extent that there are minimal disputes of fact and to the extent that the issues of law raised are the same, it was agreed to consolidate the matters and to issue a single judgment covering all the appellants. More
The brief facts are that the Appellant was employed as an agent or dealer of the Respondent. On 25 October 2010 Appellant was suspended from employment using SI 15/06. He was suspended on allegations of contravening sections 4 (a), (b), (d) and (f) of SI 15 of 2006. He appeared before a hearing which found him guilty and dismissed him from employment. Appellant referred the matter for conciliation. There was no settlement resulting in the matter being referred for arbitration. The Arbitrator confirmed Appellant’s dismissal from employment. More
On 3 February 2021, the applicants filed an urgent chamber application seeking to interdict the enforcement of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) (Standard Scale of Fines) Notice 2021 (“SI 25/21”), which was published in an extraordinary Government Gazette on 25 January 2021. Perhaps, it is important to begin by giving the context in which this application was filed and came before me. It is common cause that, on 28 March 2020, the Public Health (Covid-19 Prevention, Containment and Treatment and Treatment) Regulations 2020, Statutory Instrument 77 of 2020 (“SI 77/20”) came in force. This piece of legislation contained provisions... More
Litigants in this country are fast developing this unacceptable and indeed detestful habit of trifling with courts of law and in the process succeeding in bringing the courts to disrepute. There is no other way of describing the opposition to this application for registration of an arbitral award made against the respondent by D Mudzengi, an arbitrator, on 7 June 2011 than to say that it is trifling with the court in a regrettable manner.
The applicant was employed by the respondent, and from the papers before, me she is still so employed, as a project co-ordinator/manager. The respondent is... More
This is an urgent chamber application lodged in this court on 10 December 2021. It was placed before KABASA J who on 13 December 2021 directed that the applicant serve the urgent chamber application on the respondents together with the Notice of Set Down for Tuesday 16 December 2021 at 12 noon. On 16 December 2021 the matter although ready to be argued, could not be argued as the Legal Practitioner for the 1st respondent was indisposed and by consent of the parties the matter was post-poned to Monday 20 December 2021. With KABASA J’s duty ending on 17 December... More
The appellant appealed to the Appeals Committee, in terms of the appellant company’s Code of Conduct (the Code). The appeal, which was lodged on 10 January 2011, was out of time, in terms of the timelines stipulated by the Code. On 15 March 2011, the Appeals Committee refused to hear appellant’s appeal, as it was out of time. More
Plaintiff issued summons claiming against the defendant a decree of divorce and ancillary relief.
The parties were married on the 21st of December 1990 in terms of the Marriage Act (Chapter 5:11) and the same still subsists. During the subsistence of their marriage, the parties were blessed with three children who have all since attained the age of majority. The parties have agreed to the distribution of their movable property leaving the sole issue for determination by this court as whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to 50% share of the matrimonial property being 7833 Lotus Drive, Highmount, Bulawayo. More
Plaintiff issued summons against the defendantsclaiming payment of €9 270 as fees due under a consulting contract, interest thereon at the prescribed rate, collection commission and costs on the legal practitioner and client scale. More
