The biblical aphorism: “Whatever a man sows, that he will also reap” has lost its meaning in our society. This matter presents a sordid picture of a culture of wanting to reap where persons did not sow. The matter was instituted as an urgent chamber application on 18 September 2012. Through the urgent application the applicants seek an order interdicting the respondents from claiming or demanding payment of rentals from them until the dispute relating to the directorship and shareholding of the first respondent is resolved. The applicants also want an order that they deposit their monthly rentals due to... More
In this matter plaintiff sued first and second defendants for cancelation of a lease agreement on account of breach, ejectment of the first defendant and all those claiming occupation through first defendant from plaintiff’s premises, payment of the sum of US$9 000-00 representing rent arrears as at the time of breach and holding over damages at the rate of US$1500-00 per month from 1 April 2015 to date of ejectment and 5% per annum interest from the due date of payment.
First defendant was sued in his personal capacity as the principal debtor he having been the tenant in terms... More
The abovementioned four matters were referred to me for dealingat one and the same time. Ongoing through the records which relate to each of them, I remained alive to the fact that, whilst the applicants are different and have, accordingly, filed their respective applications with the court separately, everything else which relates to each of the four cases is substantially one and the same thing. More
This is an appeal against the judgment of the Negotiating Committee of the National Employment Council for the Commercial Sectors (N.E.C.C.S) which ordered reinstatement of the respondents without loss of salary and benefits with effect from the date of dismissal. More
On 4 January 2016 at Mutare, Arbitrator N AMutongoreni made an arbitration award. He ordered appellant to pay respondents an amount of USD23 179.42 as outstanding terminal benefits. Appellant then appealed to this court against the award. Respondents opposed the appeal. More
The circumstances surrounding the charges are that sometime in March 2012 the Respondent deliberately misrepresented to a refuse collection company that was normally contracted by the Appellant to collect discarded bottles at the Appellant’s premises. It was Appellant’s allegation that when he did so Respondent knew he was supposed to have removed the said bottles at his own cost. This was as a result of an oral agreement he had entered into with Appellant’s representatives that he (respondent) would in exchange of pallets donated to him by the Appellant clear the discarded bottles at Appellant’s premises at his own cost.... More
Plaintiff issued summons against the defendants for the recovery of a debt in the sum USD81 881.42 which it claims is due and owing to it. Plaintiff prayed for an order in the following terms:-
i) Judgment in the sum of US$81 881.42 being the capital sum owing under a Trade Credit Facility Agreement between plaintiff and first defendant dated 13 January 2011 for goods and commodities supplied and delivered at the instance and specific request of the first defendant, the sum of which has remained due despite due and proper demand.
ii) An order declaring specially executable, the immovable... More
The applicant and 1st respondent had a mining dispute over the pegging of applicant’s Eric 9 Mine which had allegedly encroached onto 1st respondent’s Annedale 12 Mine. Both mines are located in the Insiza District. With the consent of the applicant and 1st respondent the mining dispute was investigated and adjudicated upon by the Provincial Mining Director, Matabeleland South. 3rd respondent handed down a determination on 15th June 2020 with findings that applicant was required to adjust the boundaries of his claim so that they did not overlap into 1st respondent’s claims. Dissatisfied with the determination by 3rd respondent, applicant... More
KABASA J: This is an appeal against a determination made by the Provincial Mining Director for Matebeleland South. The determination filed of record has 15th June 2020 as the date of determination and T. Makaza as the official who made such determination. The notice of appeal however has a different date as the date of the determination and a different name of the official who is said to have made that determination. More
On the day of hearing this matter, I issued an order in the following terms:
“1. The decision of the 2nd Respondent of dismissing the Applicants’ application for recusal in Case No. CRB 12586/15 be and is hereby set aside.
2. That the proceedings in case number CRB 12586/15 commence de novo before another Magistrate.
3. That there be no order as to costs.” More
The applicants’ journey to justice is long and arduous. Their case passed through the hands of not less than six (6) judges of this court. I am the seventh in the queue of judges. As I write this judgment, the case is not coming to finality soon. I am dealing with an interlocutory matter. Two or more judges may deal with the rest of the case. When they will do so will depend on the outcome of this judgment. More
On 27 February 2012 the applicant filed a court application in terms of r 233(3) against the respondent seeking to evict it from number 29 Craster Road, Southerton, Harare. The application was served on the respondent on 28 February 2012. In terms of the rules of court the respondent had ten days within which to respond. The dies inducae expired on 13 March without any response from the respondent. The respondent however filed its notice of opposition a day later on 14 March 2012. More
The plaintiff, an incorporation engaged in the business of selling electrical accessories, computers and wholesale cellular airtime at No. 83 Kaguvi Street, Harare, sued the defendant, a business woman operating a shop with her Nigerian husband at No. 2 Park Street Harare for US$15 000-00 in terms of an acknowledgement of debt signed on 14 January 2011. More
The applicant seeks a review of the decision of the second respondent to cancel Mining license number ‘X’ Mine 47622 issued in the applicants name and for an order of its reinstatement. The draft order to the application was couched as follows-
“IT IS ORDERED THAT:-
1. That the cancellation of Applicant’s Mining Certificate for Shamva ‘X’ Mine Registration number 47622 posted on the Notice Board at Bindura, Mashonaland Central Province, at Ministry of Mines and Mining Development offices on 8 April 2021 be and is hereby set aside and substitute with the following orders. “The Applicant’s Mining Certificate for... More
