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
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
