These are confirmatory proceedings for the placing of applicant under final judicial management. Mr Antiock Kurauone is the current provisional judicial manager. What is disputed is not whether the company should be placed under final judicial management but whether this should be done whilst retaining Mr Kurauone as the judicial manager. The applicant argues that it is not for the respondent to decide on who is a fit and proper person since the Master did not raise any issue regarding Mr Kurauone’s suitability. More
This is a court application for condonation of late filing of a court application for review in terms of Order 40 r 359 (8) of the High Court Rules. This judgment is in respect to a preliminary point raised by the 2nd to 4th respondents (hereinafter referred to as the respondents). More
Plaintiff issued summons claiming from the defendant-
(a) payment of $72 000 000;
(b) interest at the prescribed rate from the date of demand of full payment; and
(c) costs of suit.
The issues that were referred to trial were:
“(i) Whether or not Plaintiff contributed to the purchase of Stand Number 6888, Zimre Park, Ruwa and to the developments therein, and if so, to what extent.
(ii) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to 40% of the value of the house or any other percentage thereof.” More
Appellant was employed as a teacher at St. Killian’s School. He is alleged to have committed acts of misconduct which resulted in him being brought before a Disciplinary Committee. The Disciplinary Committee found him guilty on certain of the charges and recommended his dismissal. Appellant is dissatisfied with this decision and has appealed to this Court. More
The applicant has approached this Court in terms of S 98(14) of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01] for registration of an arbitral award. The draft order for the present application is as follows:
“1. The arbitral award dated 28 May 2012 by the Arbitrator Ms L. Chibvongodze and quantified by the Arbitrator Mrs L. Sigauke on 1 March 2016 be and is hereby registered as an order of this Honourable Court.
2. The respondent shall pay the applicant a total sum of $72 000.00 (Seventy-two thousand Dollars) in terms of arbitral award.
3. Here shall be no order as to... More
The applicant approached this court seeking an order for specific performance. More particularly, the relief sought by the applicant is couched in the following way:
“1. Judgment be and is hereby entered in favour of applicant as against 1st, 2nd and 3rd Respondents, jointly and severally, the one paying and the other to be absolved.
(a) That Respondents be and are hereby ordered to surrender the Applicant’s title deeds held in the name of the Applicant under deed of transfer 4373/2012 to the Applicant.
(b) that any encumbrance placed on the said property, be and is hereby set aside.
(c)... More
The plaintiff instituted proceedings against the defendant, a minibus driver who has since died, and the second defendant, the owner of a minibus registration number WPPG 938GP registered in South Africa, for damages in the sums of US$7 865-89 special damages, US$30 000-00 for pain and suffering, permanent disability and loss of amenities of life, US$10 000-00 for future medical expenses and US$20 000-00 for loss of earning capacity. More
Appellant worked for Respondent as a Headmistress at Dzivarasekwa in Harare. She was transferred to another school. An audit was conducted which led to charges of misconduct being leveled against her. A hearing was held which found her guilty of misconduct. As a result, she was dismissed from employment by Respondent. She then appealed to this Court against her dismissal. Appellant faced a number of charges. Her argument in this Court was that Respondent failed to prove its case against her. In essence she sought to have this Court give its determination on the evidence on record. More
This is a claim for damages arising out of a road traffic accident which took place along the Harare-Bulawayo highway on 7 December 2013. The accident involved a head-on collision between a bus belonging to the second defendant and a haulage truck More
This application was filed as an urgent chamber application and although I had misgivings about its urgency I decided to set it down because it concerned a project of national interest. I therefore felt that I could not do justice to such an important matter by declining to hear it on my preliminary view that it did not deserve to be heard on an urgent basis. For this reason I directed that it be set down so that the parties could ventilate on the issue of urgency. More
This is an application in terms of s 175(4) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe (hereinafter referred to as “the Constitution”) wherein the applicant submits that s 33(2)(a) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23] (hereinafter referred to as “the Criminal Law Code”) is invalid, in that it violates the right to freedom of expression enshrined in s 61(1) of the Constitution. The applicant also submits that s 33(2)(a) of the Criminal Law Code violates her right to freedom of conscience enshrined in s 60 of the Constitution. More
Applicant has instituted an urgent chamber application against first, second and third respondent claiming a provisional order in the following terms:-
Terms of final order sought
That you show cause to this Honourable Court why a final order should not be granted that
(1) The applicant be declared the rightful owner of the mine called Virginia 2 registration number 4588 in Kadoma and Virginia 7 registration number 4589 in Kadoma.
(2) That the first respondent pay costs on a legal practitioner and client scale.
Interim order granted.
(1) The Notice issued in the Government gazette published on the 8th January... More
The applicant and the first respondent entered into a Services Agreement on 29 December 2009. It was for a fixed period, (though providing for renewal) terminating on 31 October 2015. More
The Appellant in this case was charged with two offences i.e gross incompetence or inefficiency in the performance of his work and theft or fraud. He was found guilty and dismissed from employment. He appealed to the designated authority. The appeal was dismissed and he noted this current appeal to the Labour Court. More
The accused was brought before this court in terms of section 225 (b) (i) of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act [cap 9:07] for purposes of sentence on the instruction of the Prosecutor General. The trial Magistrate had no jurisdiction to impose the minimum mandatory sentence relevant in the matter. More
