This is an application for Stay of Execution of an arbitral award in favour of the 1st Respondent pending the hearing of an appeal filed in this Court. The award was issued in April 2013. The Applicant was ordered to pay 1st Respondent a total of $7 694,00. More
The applicants are facing a charge of robbery as defined in s126(1)(a) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23]. They seek, and respondent opposes, their application for bail pending trial. More
This is a matter which was supposed to be disposed of in Chambers in terms of Rule 19(3)(a) of the Rules of this Court. However, when the applicant lodged the application for dismissal of the appeal, the record of proceedings was in bad shape. I therefore instructed the Registrar’s Office to have the record properly arranged and paginated. After the completion of that process and out of extreme caution I asked that the matter be set down for a hearing More
This is an appeal against an arbitral award.
The appellant lodged his appeal on 22 September 2014. A response to the appeal was duly filed on 28 October 2014. Both parties are not legally represented. More
TAKUVA J: This is an urgent chamber application wherein the applicant seeks interim relief couched in the following terms;
“INTERIM RELIEF SOUGHT
Pending the return date of this matter the applicant be and is hereby granted the following interim relief:
1. The respondents be and are hereby directed to suspend and put on hold the transfer of stand No. 1356 Cowdray Park from the applicant to the 1st respondent pending finalization of this matter.”
The facts giving rise to this application can be gleaned from the applicant’s founding affidavit and summarised as follows: More
The companies failed to pay off their respective debts. The respondent successfully sued the applicant and others under HC 3254/12. Judgment was entered in its favour in the sum of $21 336.01 together with interest thereon at the rate of 10% above the bank overdraft rate with effect from 17 February, 2012 to the date of full payment. It also successfully sued the applicant and others under HC 8650/12 wherein judgment was entered in its favour in the sum of $206 253.93 together with interest at 45% per annum with effect from 10 April, 2013 to the date of full... More
Order 10 r 64 of the High Court Rules, 1971 (r 64) provides as follows:
“(1) Where the defendant has entered appearance to a summons, the plaintiff may ‘at any time before a pre-trial conference is held’ make a court application in terms of this rule for the court to enter summary judgment for what is claimed in the summons and costs”
This application for summary judgment is premised on the above rule and the applicant prays for the following order:-
“Summary judgment with costs be and is hereby granted in favour of the applicant against the respondent in the... More
The application for condonation for late noting of appeal is hereby dismissed. The applicant has no prospects of success on appeal. Whilst he says that the court a quo did not inform him of his legal right to legal representation, it is clear from the record of proceedings that the accused’s guilty plea to the rape charges was unequivocal. He admitted to the charges and all the essential elements of the offence. Even in mitigation it is clear that he was admitting to having committed the offences. It is my considered view that there was no substantial miscarriage of justice.... More
This is an application for condonation of late noting of appeal. It is opposed. Two preliminary issues were taken on behalf of the respondent before the application could be argued. These have to be determined before the main application is heard as they may have the ability to dispose of the matter and therefore obviate the need to determine the merits .See TELECEL Zimbabwe (Private) Limited v Postal and Telecommunications Regulatory Authority of Zimbabwe and Others HH446/15.The two issues are that (i) the matter has prescribed and (ii) the application is defective. More
This is an appeal against the decision of the Negotiating Committee of the National Employment Council for the Commercial Sectors which confirmed on appeal, an earlier dismissal verdict from employment of Appellant by the Mashonaland Local Joint Committee.
The Appellant was employed by Respondent as a security guard and at the material time he was guarding at the main gate at AfdisSoutherton. Appellant was charged for dishonesty and other related offences, in particular, theft in terms of the Code of Conduct for the Commercial Sectors. It has alleged that he had stolen a 750 mls bottle of Amarula and another... More
Applicant applied to this Court for rescission of judgment which Respondent opposed. The application was made in terms of section 92C of the Labour Act Chapter 28:01 as read with Rule 40 of the Labour Court Rules S.I. 150 of 2017. The material facts are set out hereafter. More
Appellant appealed to this Court against his dismissal from employment by Respondent. The appeal was made in terms of section 92D of the Labour Act chapter 28:01.
The appeal grounds of appeal were ten-fold. It is inexpedient to regurgitate word for word the lengthy grounds of appeal. However, the grounds raise four issues which will be dealt with ad seriatim. More
This is an application for quantification of damages following an order of this Court dated 15 May 2013. This Court ordered the reinstatement of applicant without loss of salary and benefits. In the event that reinstatement was no longer possible, respondent was to pay damages in lieu of reinstatement. The parties failed to agree on the quantum of damages. More
