This is an appeal against the whole of a judgment of the Magistrate Court (the court a quo) dated 29 August 2022, which granted a binding over order to keep the peace in favour of the respondent, and ordered the appellant to keep peace and stay away from Subdivision 3 of Darnaway Farm. More
This is an appeal against a magistrate’s decision dismissing the appellant’s court application for unjust enrichmentmade in terms of Order 22 of the Magistrates Court Rules, 1980. More
The applicant is on trial before the first respondent, charged with criminal abuse of duty as a public officer as defined in s 174(1) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23]. The definition of the crime was recently amended. The amendments have no bearing on the issues raised by this review since the crime was allegedly committed before the amendments. More
This is an appeal against conviction and sentence. The appellant was convicted of rape as defined in s 65(1) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23]. He was sentenced to 8 years imprisonment of which 3 years were suspended for 5 years on the usual condition of good behaviour, to leave the effective custodial term of 5 years. More
The appellant was employed by the respondent from 1985 until September 2014 when he was dismissed from employment. He has approached this Court on appeal against the dismissal. More
The material background facts to the matter are as follows; the applicant is a former employee of the respondent. He was employed as a general hand in the Tobacco Section. On the 17th *March 2022 the respondent levelled a charge of misconduct against the Applicant. The Applicant was subsequently suspended from employment ‘until further notice’ on the 24th of March, 2022. He was later charged with committing ‘any conduct inconsistent with the fulfilment of the express or implied terms of his employment contract’. On the 7th of April 2022 he appeared before a Disciplinary Authority to answer to the charge.... More
The appellant was employed as a shift Manager from November 2009. During the course of his duties he was found with a variance of forty eight cans of drinks after a random spot check was conducted. He was charged in terms of Section 4 (a) of Statutory Instrument 15 of 2006 and subsequently dismissed in October 2010.
After the dismissal the case took a long and winding journey. Accordingto the Respondent the appellant noted an internal appeal on 18 October 2010 and also referred the matter to a Labour Officer on the same day. When conciliation failed the matter was... More
December 2011 the applicant filed an application in this court under case No HC 12336/11 seeking a prohibitory interdict against the respondents. The remedy sought was to prevent the respondents from moving or accepting any motion from any member of the House of Assembly to dismiss the applicant without the matter of his dismissal first being brought before the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders (CSRO) or its sub committee or other independent and impartial disciplinary authority. More
This is an appeal against a determination of the respondent’s chief executive officer.
The appellant was employed by the respondent as a risk control assistant from 18 February 2007 to 24 November 2015when he was suspended from duty pending disciplinary proceedings. More
This is an application for summary judgment. The applicant, which is the plaintiff in the main matter, instituted an action against the respondent for the following relief:
(a) An order for the eviction of the defendant and all those claiming occupation through it from the premises known as Ground Floor, Shop No. 5, Thaine Building, Harare. More
By consent, the disciplinary proceedings held by the respondent on 4 July 2014 be and are hereby set aside.
• respondent is to reinstate the applicant with effect from dated of unlawful dismissal without loss of salary and benefits, and may, if it so wishes reinstitute fresh disciplinary proceedings in a procedurally correct manner.
• in the event that reinstatement is not an option, the applicant should be paid damages in lieu of reinstatement, the quantum of which should be agreed by the parties or assessed by the court.
The respondent is of the view that reinstatement is no longer... More
This matter came before me via the chamber book on the basis of perceived urgency. The applicants are desirous of a provisional order whose interim relief is couched in this vein:
“Pending determination of this matter, the first and second applicant is (sic) granted the following relief:-
1.
That the motor vehicles impounded by the respondent from the second applicant being Isuzu KB 250 double cab, Registration ABG 3091 and Isuzu KB 250 ABI 6481 double cab, be and are hereby ordered to be released to second applicant forthwith or upon service of this Order. More
This is an urgent chamber application for an interdict. The applicant is a tenant at stand number 5120, Stockton Road, Belmont, Bulawayo in terms of a lease agreement held with the first respondent. The lease is expiring on the 31st December 2021.
A dispute has emerged between the applicant and 1st respondent regarding the ownership of a 20 meter by 18 meter steel structure which was erected by the applicant in February 2016. When the applicant notified the first respondent’s representatives of its intention to remove the steel structure at the end of the lease, this was opposed. The first... More
HUNGWE J: The appellants were convicted of bribery after a protracted trial. They were each sentenced to 24 months imprisonment of which 12 months imprisonment was suspended for a period of five years on the usual conditions of good behaviour.
They both appealed against conviction and sentence. They were legally represented at their trial. On appeal only second appellant was legally represented. Their trial lawyers filed the grounds of appeal which addressed various issues they intended to argue on appeal.
First appellant’s grounds of appeal failed to comply with r 22 (1) of the Criminal Appeals Rules applicable to the... More
