The appellant appealed against the decision of a Magistrate who ordered her to return the cattle, goats and money which had been attached in execution to satisfy a judgment which had been granted in her favour by the Chief’s court. The respondent, who was the appellant in the Magistrate’s court, opposes the appellant’s appeal. More
In a judgment dated the 13th of November 2019 issued under MBR CRB 2580/19, appellant was found guilty of two counts under the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act, [Chapter 9:23] (The Act) to wit:-
Count 1- theft of trust property as defined in s 113 (2) (d) of the Act in that:-
On the 30th of August 2018 at Tsiga Grounds Mbare Harare, Sarudzai Harry (appellant) in violation of a trust agreement which required her to sell 187 packets of MAQ Surf valued at US$850 on behalf of Juliana Chimutwe (complainant) and to hand over the cash after the... More
The applicant claims the return of the movable property itemized in para a of the interim relief. The applicant has failed to establish ownership of the five trucks and six as itemized. More
On 6 October 2022, an appeal against the judgment of the Magistrates Court sitting at Harare, handed down on 22 June, 2022, under case number 1349/22 was upheld with costs. Reasons for the decision have been requested. These are they. More
The appellant in this matter was convicted of rape as defined in section 65 of the Criminal law Codification and Reform Act (Chapter 9:23). The allegations were that appellant had anal intercourse with the complainant Sabina Dube sometime in June 2017. Appellant was sentenced to 12 years imprisonment with 3 years imprisonment suspended on the usual conditions. More
On 11 February 2010 the plaintiffs herein issued out summons against the four defendants for payment of the sum of US$48 518-50 jointly and severally, the one paying the others to be absolved, interest on the said sum and costs of suit. Only the first and the third defendants entered appearance to defend. The first defendant then filed an exception to the summons and declaration after requesting and being furnished with further particulars. The third defendant has not filed any further pleadings. More
This is an application for absolution of the first defendant from the instance, at the close of the plaintiff’s case. The matter was originally heard as an opposed Court Application. It was then referred to trial, the court having then found that there was a dispute of fact which could not be resolved on the papers without oral evidence being presented to the court. More
The appellant is a former employer of the respondents. On 12 March 2012 the first respondent commenced employment with the appellant as a Human Resources Manager. The second respondent commenced employment with the appellant on 1 March 2012 as an Accounts Manager. The respondents signed written contracts of employment agreeing to serve a probationary period of three months. During that period the notice period for termination of employment was 24 hours. More
At the end of the hearing of this matter, we allowed the appeal with costs. An order as set out hereunder was issued:
1. The appeal be and is hereby allowed with costs.
2. The judgment of the court a quo is set aside and in its place the following is substituted:
(a) The application for summary judgment is dismissed.
(b) The second defendant is given unconditional leave to defend the plaintiff’s claim. More
This is an appeal from Honourable Manase’s decision. The facts show that the respondents were employed by the appellant. Respondents were offered employment which was conditional on their completing their respective probationary periods. After the probationary periods had expired it is alleged that appellant wrote to the respondents informing them that due to unsatisfactory performance during the probation period the appellant was renewing the probation period. The matter was referred to conciliation and finally to arbitration. The arbitrator found in favour of the respondents. Appellant has therefore appealed to this Court. More
The applicant seeks payment of US$ 121 115-00 together with interest at the rate of 20% per annum from 1 July 2011 to the date of full payment, costs on the scale of legal practitioner and client and collection commission to the extent permitted by the Law Society of Zimbabwe by-laws. Its cause of action is based on the acknowledgement of debt and payment arrangement signed by the defendant and witnessed by Richard Kavaza, the applicant’s credit controller on 1 July 2011. The application was filed on 26 August 2011. More
This is an appeal against an arbitral award ordering Appellant to pay bush allowance to the Respondents’ for the period April 2009 to April 2010.
The brief facts are that the Respondents were employed by the Appellant on a 2 year fixed contract. The Appellant did not renew the contracts after the expiration of the two years. Aggrieved by such non-renewal of the contracts, the Respondents’ filed a complaint that their fixed contracts were unlawfully terminated and that they were not paid their full salaries during their employment period. The matter was subsequently referred for arbitration. More
Sometime in 2005 the land in dispute was acquired by the State in terms of section 16B (4) of the former Constitution of Zimbabwe. It was subsequently ceded to the 2nd respondent for the protection and management of wildlife therein. Applicant and 2nd respondent entered into a five (5) year lease agreement wherein applicant would occupy Lot 4 of Devuli Ranch held under Deed of Transfer 5251/92 and conduct hunting business on it. This lease agreement was entered into on 13th December 2017, a week after 1st respondent had issued summons in HC 3183/17. In that case, 1st respondent was... More
MOYO J: This is an urgent chamber application wherein the applicant sought spoliatory relief for the repossession of Lot 4 Devuli Ranch also known as Mapari Ranch.
At the hearing of the matter I granted the order ex tempore. The 1st respondent has requested written reasons. Here are the reasons. 1st respondent had raised 2 points in limine. The 1st being that applicant was not properly represented as there was no resolution authorizing Leon Johannes du Plessis to represent applicant. A resolution was then tendered from the bar, the court accepted it and that point was settled. A 2nd point... More
: This matter was brought before me as an urgent application on 07 and 16 May 2013.
After hearing arguments on the matter I concluded that the urgency of the matter had not been fully established and I therefore declined to treat the matter as urgent and ordered the applicant to pay costs. More
