The background facts which are common cause are as follows;
The Appellant was employed by the Respondent as its Distribution Supervisor. He was given leave of absence to attend a training session from the 18th to the 21st of January, 2011. On the 21st of January of 2011 the training ended earlier around 1100hours. After training the Appellant went to his department and advised his subordinates to plan for the weekend programme. During his absence his subordinates stole 608 cases of Mazoe Orange Crush valued at US$9 093, 89. The Appellant was suspended from employment. More
This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court upholding the special plea by the respondents that the High Court did not have jurisdiction to determine issues of employment and labour law. At the centre of the dispute between the parties, both in the court a quo and before this Court, is the question whether the High Court, which now enjoys original jurisdiction over all civil and criminal matters throughout Zimbabwe pursuant to s 171 of the 2013 Constitution, has jurisdiction to determine all matters including issues of labour and employment. More
This matter was set down as an appeal against the arbitrator’s decision where he ruled on the point in limineraised in the arbitral proceedings that the employees had pursued multiple legal proceedings hence the claim they had brought before the arbitrator could not be entertained by the arbitrator. More
On 16 December, 2015 the applicant moved the court to:
(i) evict the 1st – 21st respondents and all those who claimed occupation through them from Dorith More and Stanley [“the farms”];
(ii) interdict the respondents and those that claimed through them from entering the farms- and
(iii) order the 22nd respondent to assist the Sheriff in evicting the respondents and those who claimed through them from the farms More
I heard this matter on 18 May 2021, I delivered an ex tempore judgment in terms of which I granted the applicant’s prayer with costs.
On 19 October 2021, the High Court Registrar wrote advising me that my decision had been appealed. He requested reasons for the same. These are they:
The applicant is a legal entity. It is the owner and lawful occupier of two pieces of land (“the farm”) which are in the District of Hartley which is now known as Chegutu. The pieces or the farmcomprise(s): More
This is an application for leave to appeal against the decision of this court of 7 July 2021 in case HC 4469/20, judgment HH 352/21.Applicants filed two applications, HC 1230/19 and HC 3457/19, with this court which they did not persue until the respondent filed a chamber application for their dismissal for want of prosecution under case HC 4469/20. On 19 March 2021, the day of the hearing of the initial chamber application, applicants persuaded the court that they be given more time to set down their two matters.
The presiding judicial officer granted their request and by consent from... More
The application before me is an application for leave to execute pending appeal. The facts of the case have been covered in detail in the pleadings and what appears below is a brief summary of the relevant facts.
The applicant hereinapplied to this Honourable Court to have an arbitral award registered. This application was opposed by the respondent. The respondent opposed the application for two main reasons; the first was that there was an application for stay of execution of the arbitral award pending before the Labour Court at the time the applicant sought to have the arbitral award registered.... More
The Court is proceeding in terms of Section 89 (2)(a)(i) of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01] THE ACT which reads:
“In the exercise of its functions, the Labour Court may –
(a) On the case of an appeal –
(i) Conduct a hearing into the matter or decide it on the record; or
(ii) …………………………………” More
The first respondent issued summons against the appellant and second respondent, in the court a quo. The appellant and second respondent were the defendants whilst first respondent was the plaintiff. The order sought had the following terms: More
This is an application to set aside a sale in execution conducted by the Sheriff in terms of Order 40 Rule 359 (8).
Before I proceed to deal with the substance of the application I have to deal with the entire background and the application for my recusal by applicant.
I initially set this matter down on 11 June 2020 at 10:00 hours. It is crucial to mention that parties were given a long set down date of about 3 weeks in total. To be precise, this application was served on the applicants’ legal practitioners on 18 May 2020, advising... More
The plaintiff is a medical doctor by profession. He was employed by the first defendant as Health Services Director until his contract of employment was terminated through compulsory retrenchment on 22 February 2015. The first defendant is a local authority established in terms of the laws of Zimbabwe. It is responsible for the administration of the affairs of the Harare Metropolitan province. The second defendant is the authority reposed with mandate to record and register rights in real estate, as well as being the custodian of title deeds. A dispute arose between the plaintiff and first defendant in connection with... More
It cannot be a proper exercise of the court’s discretion to allow a plaintiff to reopen his case, and to amend his summons and declaration where such efforts are designed to ward off an application for absolution at the close of the plaintiff’s case.
What happened is this.
On 16 November 2016 the plaintiff issued summons seeking the following relief:
“(a) Delivery and transfer of ownership by the first defendant to the plaintiff of the residential property being a house number 93 Rotten Row Road/Cnr Robert Mugabe Road, Harare.
(b) should the first defendant fail to comply with the para... More
The appellant was charged with the crime of fraud as defined in s 136 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23] together with one Stanley Musendo (“Musendo”). During the trial the appellant was the second accused. Despite their pleas of not guilty, they were both convicted ascharged and each of them was sentenced to 10 years imprisonment of which 2 years imprisonment was suspended for five years on condition of good behaviour. A further 4 years imprisonment was suspended on condition that the accused make restitution on or before 30 June 2014 leaving aneffective 4 years imprisonment... More
It appears to me that an accused person who, during a criminal trial, takes the court into his confidence, and confesses to an act or omission constituting an essential element of a crime, may not genuinely appeal against the trial court’s finding that he committed such act or that he made such an omission unless the appeal takes the form of retracting the admission on any valid legal ground. The admission means that there will be no dispute on the issue between the State and the accused to be resolved by the court. See S v Kwainona 1993 (2), ZLR... More
