On 12 June 2014, in Judgement No. CCZ 2/14, this Court held that s 96 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23] was inconsistent with the freedom of expression guaranteed by s 20(1) of the former Constitution. Furthermore, the Court found that the applicants had discharged the onus of showing that the impugned provision was not reasonably justifiable in a democratic society within the contemplation of s 20(2) of the Constitution. More
In early 2000, at the height of the land reform programme, the applicants and many others moved to occupy Heydon Farm on the outskirts of Harare. They proceeded to build family homes and to engage in agricultural activities. Subsequently the whole of Heydon Farm was compulsorily acquired by the State and a notice to that effect was published in the Government Gazette in terms of the Land Acquisition Act [Chapter 20:10]. Contrary to their expectations none of the occupiers were favoured with either offer letters, permits or lease agreements which documents would have regularised their stay at Heydon Farm. Instead... More
CHITAKUNYE AJA: This is an appeal against part of the judgment of the High Court of Zimbabwe handed down on 31 October 2018. In that judgment the court a quo granted the first appellant’s application but dismissed the applications by the other appellants. The applications were, inter alia, for declaration of the appellants’ citizenship status. This appeal initially pertained to those appellants whose applications were dismissed. More
CHITAKUNYE JA: This is an opposed chamber application for reinstatement of an appeal in terms of r 70 (2) of the Supreme Court Rules 2018. The intended appeal is against the whole judgment of the High Court sitting at Bulawayo handed down on 17 December 2020 in case number HC 1314/20 judgment number HB 12-21. More
This is an appeal against the whole judgment of the High Court which confirmed a provisional order that the first and second respondents had satisfied their judgment debt denominated in US Dollars by making payments in RTGs dollars converted at a bank rate of one United States dollar to one RTGS dollar. More
The applicants in the above matters sought on an urgent basis similar relief by way of provisional orders. Although I heard each application separately andon different dates, the cause of action in each of the applications is substantially the same and the draft orders filed of each record are identical, word for word. More
The above matters have been consolidated in the interest of and at the behest of the parties. In this judgment I shall refer to the application under case number HC 5566/11 as “the first case” and the application under case number HC 5584/11 as “the second case.” More
This is an appeal against the whole judgment of the High Court handed down on 11 April 2018 in which it granted a spoliation order in favour of the respondents directing the appellants to restore the respondents to the church temple and premises located at Stand 3874 Caledonia, Harare. The High Court also ordered the appellants to release keys to the temple to the respondents and ordered the appellants to pay costs on a legal practitioner and client scale jointly and severally the one paying the others to be absolved. More
By judgment delivered on 5 October 2022, the High Court [“the court a quo”], dismissed the appellant’s court application made in terms of s 27(1) (c) of the High Court Act [Chapter 7:06] [“the High Court Act”] as read with r 62 of the High Court Rules, 2021, for the review of disciplinary proceedings conducted by the respondents. This appeal is against that judgment. More
The appellants are the guardians of the minor children R. S. W. and C. R. H. M. respectively. In this judgment R. S. W. and C. R. H. M. are jointly referred to as “the children”. Pitted against the appellants are the third respondent, a trust school registered as a non-governmental school in terms of the Education Act [Chapter 25:04] [the “Education Act”], the first respondent who is the headmistress of the school and the second respondent who is the deputy headmaster. The fourth and fifth respondents are the trustees for the time being for the St. Christophers School Trust... More
The two cases were consolidated per request by counsels as the decision in one case affects the other. The parties are the same. In the first case the applicant is applying for registration of an arbitral award while the second matter is an application for setting aside of the same arbitral award handed by the Honourabe Arbitrator Justice NOVEMBER TAFUMA MTSHIYA (Retired judge) on the first of March 2017 in favour of applicant in HC 9484/17. More
The applicant received, by way of donation, 51% of the second respondent’s shares in 2011 through the shareholders agreement. This transaction shall be hereinafter called “the 2011 agreement” or the “shareholders agreement”. In 2016, Mr Mutanda sold his shares for the companies to the Government of Zimbabwe. According to the third respondent, the transaction saw the Government of Zimbabwe becoming the major shareholder in the second respondent. However, the applicant is disputing this. In 2020, the third respondent appointed board members for the second respondent. The applicant disputed this and initiated the arbitration proceedings through the letter dated 10 November... More
These urgent chamber applications were filed under case numbers HC 1412/19 and HC 1418/19 respectively. On perusing the papers it became evident that these applications related to the same parties. The relief sought in both applications is substantially similar and relates to disputed mining claims adjacent to each other. I directed that these applications be considered and determined at the same time. Before hearing brief oral submissions from counsel, I enquired whether there would be any prejudice to the parties if these matters were consolidated. Legal counsel for the parties confirmed that it was indeed appropriate to hear these matters... More
[1] This is an appeal against the judgment of the Labour Court confirming with an amendment a ruling by a labour officer that the appellant was guilty of an unfair labour practice and that the appellant pays to each of the respondents arrear compensation due to them for the period March 2011 to September 2015.The appellant seeks an order setting aside the confirmation and, in its place, another order dismissing the application for confirmation with no order as to costs. More
