This is an appeal against an arbitral award ordering Appellant to pay bush allowance to the Respondents’ for the period April 2009 to April 2010.
The brief facts are that the Respondents were employed by the Appellant on a 2 year fixed contract. The Appellant did not renew the contracts after the expiration of the two years. Aggrieved by such non-renewal of the contracts, the Respondents’ filed a complaint that their fixed contracts were unlawfully terminated and that they were not paid their full salaries during their employment period. The matter was subsequently referred for arbitration. More
Sometime in 2005 the land in dispute was acquired by the State in terms of section 16B (4) of the former Constitution of Zimbabwe. It was subsequently ceded to the 2nd respondent for the protection and management of wildlife therein. Applicant and 2nd respondent entered into a five (5) year lease agreement wherein applicant would occupy Lot 4 of Devuli Ranch held under Deed of Transfer 5251/92 and conduct hunting business on it. This lease agreement was entered into on 13th December 2017, a week after 1st respondent had issued summons in HC 3183/17. In that case, 1st respondent was... More
MOYO J: This is an urgent chamber application wherein the applicant sought spoliatory relief for the repossession of Lot 4 Devuli Ranch also known as Mapari Ranch.
At the hearing of the matter I granted the order ex tempore. The 1st respondent has requested written reasons. Here are the reasons. 1st respondent had raised 2 points in limine. The 1st being that applicant was not properly represented as there was no resolution authorizing Leon Johannes du Plessis to represent applicant. A resolution was then tendered from the bar, the court accepted it and that point was settled. A 2nd point... More
: This matter was brought before me as an urgent application on 07 and 16 May 2013.
After hearing arguments on the matter I concluded that the urgency of the matter had not been fully established and I therefore declined to treat the matter as urgent and ordered the applicant to pay costs. More
The relevant facts are as follows; - first applicant (“Savechem”) and first respondent (“Masimba”) are entities registered per the laws of Zimbabwe. Their further particulars or characteristics as commercial entities were not furnished. The parties concluded a lease agreement sometime in May 2019.
[3] In terms thereof, Savechem occupied Masimba`s premises known as 56A Main Street, Bindura. Second respondent, Mr. Rubengo who is a director of Savechem, bound himself as surety for the due performance by Savechem of its tenancy obligations. More
Applicant applied to this Court for quantification of damages for loss of employment. The application was made in terms of the Court’s judgment issued on 25 March 2022 which inter alia ordered that;
“2(b) 2nd Respondent (BRDC) shall pay Applicant damages in lieu of reinstatement in an amount either agreed by the parties or assessed by this Court.” More
On 21 June 2023, the appellant amongst other prospective candidates, successfully lodged his nomination papers as a presidential candidate before the Nomination Court. The first respondent became aware of the appellant’s nomination and acceptance of candidature through the social media. He took exception to the acceptance of the appellant’s candidature.
In a letter dated 22 June 2023 addressed to the Chief Elections Officer, the first respondent stated that the appellant had not been resident in his constituency and in the country for a continuous period of eighteen (18) months. He further stated that the appellant did not therefore meet the... More
Two preliminary issues were raised on behalf of the respondent. These are:
(i) that there is no cause of action.
(ii) estoppel – that the applicant waived his rights when he received a package from the employer following retrenchment and as such he is estopped from challenging the retrenchment process. More
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
