The applicant is a limited liability mining concern duly registered in terms of the company laws of Zimbabwe. The first respondent is the Mining Commissioner for the Midlands Province. He is a public officer and government bureaucrat cited in his official capacity as the authority responsible for issuing mining licences and permits among other responsibilities. The second respondent is the Secretary for Mines and Mining Development. He equally holds public office and is a government functionary. The third respondent is the Minister of Mines and Mining Development. He is cited in his official capacity as the authority responsible charged with... More
The Applicant’s mining blocks were prospected, pegged and registered in May 1964 giving it exclusive mining rights to approximately 3878 hectares of land situate in Mberengwa District. Within the same area, the applicant additionally holds a valid mining claim called Lith 15 (GM8172). For expediency, I will refer to the area to which the applicant lays claim as the Sandawana mining area. In October 1986 the Ministry of Mines reserved the Sandawana Mining area against prospecting. That reservation notice subsisted until 30 September 2022 when it was revoked. Another notice against prospecting in the same area was however issued on... More
This is an application for an anti-dissipation interdict which seeks to bar the first respondent from extracting and removing lithium ore from its mining claim. Apparently, the applicant which has a registered mining claim ‘Lith 15’ (Registration Claim GM 8172 BM) is locked in a serious mining dispute of encroachment with the first respondent which has a registered mining claim ‘Sandawana AV8’ (Registration Number 17332BM). As a result of the encroachment dispute, there is a mining area which is disputed between the two parties which each party claims be its area. More
This matter originates from an eviction order granted by the Magistrates’ Court in Case No. KKGL668/20 concerning Stand No. 14, Charles Street, Newton, Kwekwe. The order directed the eviction of the second respondent, Shepherd Tundiya, and all those claiming occupation through him. This order was confirmed by the High Court and subsequently by the Supreme Court under Case No. SCB72/23, rendering it final and binding More
The applicant was convicted after contest of contravening s89 (1) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23]. She was sentenced to 10 months imprisonment.She appealed against sentence. More
On 12 March 2025 Plaintiff issued our summons claiming damages for loss of contumelia and consortium. She also claimed interest thereon and costs of suit on a legal practitioner and client scale. In her declaration she stated that the defendant intruded into the marriage institution between herself and her husband sometime in 2014 and proceeded to engage in a sexual relationship with the Plaintiff’s husband. This, Plaintiff claimed was despite Defendant’s knowledge of the romantic and peaceful marriage relationship existing between the plaintiff and her husband. She further stated that three children were born by the Defendant having been sired... More
This is an opposed court application seeking a declaratory order in terms of the High Court Act [Chapter 7:06], where the applicant seeks an order confirming the validity of the contract of employment contract which she entered into with the respondent on 5 May 2020. More
The respondent raised a point in limine that the grounds of appeal do not raise questions of law as envisaged by section 98 (10) of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01]. Section 98 (10) provides
“An appeal on a question of law shall lie to the Labour Court from any decision of an arbitrator appointed in terms of this section.”
What constitutes a question of law has been authoritatively answered in numerous cases including Sable Chemical Industries (Pvt) Ltd V Easterbrook 2010 (1) ZLR 342 and Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe v Corrine Granger & Another 2001 ZLR (10 sc. In those... More
This is an appeal by the Appellant Company against the decision of the General Engineering Committee (G.E.C) which had set aside the Respondent’s (“the employee’s”) dismissal on charges of stealing paint from his workplace. More
This is an appeal against an arbitral award.
The respondent was employed by the appellant as a contract manager at Unki Mine a subsidiary company of the appellant.
The respondent was entitled to various allowances including housing, education assistance and annual bonus.
Before the country migrated to the multi-currency system in 2009 the respondent received his housing allowance on a monthly basis. From January 2009 the appellant paid its employees in United States dollars and the respondent’s housing allowance was not paid from that time. More
KABASA J: The plaintiffs issued summons against the defendant claiming US$500 000 in damages for defamation. This amount was apportioned at US$125 000 for each of the four plaintiffs.
The plaintiffs’ claim arises from a statement the defendant uttered at the plaintiffs’ sister’s funeral. The statement is not disputed but the defendant contends that the statement was made in her capacity as a family friend “sahwira”, the content of which was truthful, fair and meant to counsel the plaintiffs. Such statement was neither wrongful nor defamatory. More
This is an appeal against the judgment of the Magistrates Court in which the court a quo gave the following order after a full trial;
“Judgment of absolution from the instance be and is hereby granted.” More
The applicant was arrested together with 5 co-accused with whom he is jointly charged of 6 counts of armed robbery. He has applied for bail pending trial
In his application for bail the applicant argued that he has no previous convictions and has a permanent place of residence and has no propensity to commit crime. He also denies vehemently that he was involved in any of the offences that the State alleges he committed with his co-accused. He further argued that he is operating a successful company pioneering new technology and inventions and is famous for the good work he... More
In 1998, the appellant moved onto stand number 1957 Chinamano Extension in Epworth, with the blessings of one Sophia Jera (“Sophia”), the then registered tenant in respect of the property. Subject to the land being subdivided with the consent of the local authority, he would purchase a portion of the land. He paid a certain sum of money to Sophia for such purchase. The exact amount that he paid was in dispute during the trial and it is not important for the purposes of this appeal that we determine its quantum. In making the payment, the appellant believed that he... More
Respondent was employed by the appellant as an office orderly/clerk when he was charged of contravening schedule 4 of the National Employment Council Welfare and Educational Institutions Code of Conduct (the Code), in particular section 4.23 for having committed sexual harassment. The facts giving rise to the charges were that he was alleged to have sexually harassed some female students by being sexually abusive and improperly associating with them. More
