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
Applicant was employed by respondent on successive one month contracts for the period 9 November 2009 to 12/10. On 4 January applicant entered into an employment contract with Lorimark (Pvt) Ltd and the contract was terminated on 4 February 2011 on allegations of misconduct. Applicant alleged unfair dismissal and referred the matter for resolution. Honourable Arbitrator Matsikidze ruled that respondent was applicant’s employer, not Lorimark (Pvt) Ltd. The issue of unfair dismissal was dealt with by Honourable Arbitrator Mutsinze who ruled that at the time of the termination of contract in February 2011. Applicant’s contract was without limit of time... More
The applicants are husband and wife and the respondents are also husband and wife. On the 27th February 2012, the parties entered into an agreement of sale in terms of which the Applicants sold to Respondents an immovable property ,namely, 2200 square meters of Lot 48, Marlborough Township of Marlborough held under Deed of Transfer number 1187/2003. Due to some challenges with the sale transaction on the 17th June 2016 the respondents sued the applicants in HC 6185/16 seeking an order confirming the cancellation of the agreement of sale and ordering the Applicants to reimburse the purchase price of US$... More
The applicant was dismissed from employment in terms of the Labour Relations Act [Chapter 28:01] as amended. He is alleged to have committed an act inconsistent with the fulfillment of the express or implied conditions of his contract of employment and fraud. More
Before the matter was heard on the merits the respondent raised two preliminary points. The first preliminary point being that the appellant was improperly before the court since he did not exhaust local remedies provided for in the respondent’s Code of Conduct. The second issue being that some of the grounds of appeal are grounds for review and should be struck off. On that basis Counsel for the respondent urged the court to dismiss the appeal. The application for dismissal on the preliminary points was opposed. Counsel for the respondent’s basis of opposing the first preliminary point was that the... More
The applicant filed an urgent chamber application and sought the following relief:
“TERMS OF FINAL ORDER SOUGHT
1. That the reallocation of stand number 32, Muguta Shopping Centre, Epworth to the second, third, fourth respondent or any other person be and is hereby reversed.
2. That the first respondent is ordered to expedite the process of approving the applicant’s building plans.
3. Alternatively that first respondent allocates the applicant another commercial stand of the same size.
4. That first applicant to pay costs of this application on the legal practitioner –client scale. More
This is an appeal against the decision of the Magistrates Court sitting at Chinhoyi. The trial court had upheld the now respondents’ relief for summary judgment against appellants. On the 8th of July 2024, after a long and protracted hearing we dismissed the summary judgment and allowed the appeal through an extempore ruling. A request for judgment was made on the same day before closure of business prompting us to request for the transcript of the record of proceedings as it bore the reasons for our judgment. These are the reasons. More
Respondent was employed by appellant for five years as an Accountant. She went on maternity leave in January 2013. During the period she was on maternity leave her salary was reduced from $700 to $450. On 6 June 2013 her employment was terminated. Aggrieved, she approached the Ministry of Labour complaining of unfair labour practice in that she was discriminated in the reduction of her salary and was not given notice prior to the termination of her employment. The matter was not settled at conciliation and was subsequently referred to arbitration. More
