This is an application for rescission of a judgment entered against the applicant. An order was made dismissing the application. The following are the reasons for the dismissal.
At the commencement of the hearing a preliminary issue was raised on behalf of the respondent regarding timeous filing of heads of argument on behalf of the applicant. The complaint was that they were filed a day out of time. Ms Banga who appeared on behalf of the applicant produced proof that they were filed after close of business on the last day of the time limit. This is why they were... More
This is an appeal against the decision of National Employment Council Appeals Committee that was issued on the 20 February 2014. The National Employment Committee ruled in the respondent’s favour and ordered as follows;
“1. That the charge of Part C (23) is hereby set aside and substituted with Part A (4) which is for “Negligent performance of duties with minor consequences” and which warrants a verbal warning on first breach
2. Reinstatement is to be effected from the date of the National Employment Council’s determination and it is without back pay.
3. Alternatively, the employer can pay damages in... More
The facts of the case are as follows:
The appellant is in the business of providing security (guards). On or about the 22nd of May 2012 one of the appellant’s clients raised an alarm. This meant that something was wrong. The respondent was on duty. He was party to a team that went tocheck the premises in question. Two other people who included a driver were the other members of that team. Upon arrival at the scene it was observed that the main gate or entrance to the premises was locked. However, the screen door to the building-which door is... More
This is an appeal against a decision of the Negotiating Committee handed down on the 3rd October, 2011 by which the Appellant was ordered to reinstate he Respondent without loss of salary and benefits from the date of dismissal. More
This is a court application in which the applicant is seeking leave of the court to file opposing papers to an application for corporate rescue brought by the 1st respondent against the 2nd respondent in case number HCHC 276/24. The application is opposed by the 1st respondent. More
The plaintiff claims from the defendant payment of the sum of US$1 517 465-00, reduced to US$1 461 000-00 by an amendment to the summons and declaration, and finally to US$1 014 483-00 at trial. The claim is for damages for breach of contract. The nature of such damages is not finely pleaded. They are supposed to be consequential or anticipatory damages flowing from the alleged breach. More
Defendant raised a special plea against plaintiff`s claim for an amount of US$274,768 as damages for alleged breach of contract. Both parties are economic players in the agricultural sector. Sometime in November 2022, plaintiff (“Seedco”) and defendant (“Mr Falkenberg”) concluded a soya bean crop financing and production contract. More
The applicant is facing a charge of possession of a specially protected animal species. It is alleged that on 5 January 2021 and at around 1100 hours the applicant who was in the company of four other accused persons who are still at large were driving a Toyota Corolla vehicle Registration Number ACW 2580 silver in colour and they parked it along Harare-Mutare Highway at Hwedza turn off, Rusape. They were intercepted by police detectives and they were found in possession of two live pangolins. The pangolins were placed on the back seat covered with a white sack. The applicant... More
This is an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against my judgment of 18 March 2016 in which I dismissed an application for condonation of late filing of an appeal.
The 189 applicants are former employees of the respondent who were each employed at different times in various capacities. They were retrenched on 30 June 2010 following each applicant signing a retrenchment agreement. Such agreements were duly approved by the Retrenchment Board on 12 July 2010 and each applicant was paid their dues. More
It is not clear who is alleged to have violated the afore-quoted provisions. Was
it the respondent? Further it is not clear how the provisions were allegedly violated. This raised questions about the validity of the Notice of Appeal. The notice is required to have cognizable grounds of appeal. The notice in casu is very vague to say the least. Such notice should not leave the Court to speculate on what it is that the appellant requires to be determined by the Court. It is the duty of the appellant to set out clear, concise and cognizable grounds of appeal.... More
This is an appeal in which the respondent has raised a point in limine. In submissions on behalf of the respondent the point was raised that the appeal is not properly before this Court. This was submitted in view of the initial citation of one of the parties. The respondent submitted that the “Ministry of Home Affairs” is not a competent party because it is not a legal persona. (See Gariya Safaris (Pvt) Ltd v Van Wyke 1996(2) ZLR 246(H).I agree with that submission and the authorities cited. More
The applicant is facing allegations of murder as defined in s 47 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23]. The brief allegations being that on 26 March 2021 at Mahachi Village, Chief Musikavanhu Chipinge the accused together with an accomplice her son assaulted the deceased several times on the head and all over the body using an iron bar. The accused persons assaulted the deceased who was selling curtains till he died. The accused suspected that the deceased had stolen their blankets hence they perpetrated the assault on him. The accused then pulled the body of the... More
This is an urgent chamber application for an interdict to, among other things, stop the respondents from using any information or material relating to the applicant’s affairs or business or method of carrying out business or advertisements including referring to any work done by the applicant. More
MHURI J: This is an application for a declaratur and interdict in which the applicant seeks the following, that:
1. the agreement of sale between 1st and 2nd respondent in respect of Stand No. 6688 Rusununguko, Chinhoyi entered into on the 30th June 2020 be declared null and void.
2. the oral agreement of sale in respect of Stand No. 6688, Rusununguko, Chinhoyi between the applicant and 1st respondent be declared valid and binding.
3. first respondent be ordered to sign all the necessary papers and documents for the purposes of effecting cession of Stand No. 6688, Rusununguko, Chinhoyi from... More
In this matter, the applicant is desirous of an order for the eviction of the respondent from its mining claims. In addition, applicant seeks to interdict the respondent from continuing to mine its claims more fully described as Rushingo Dolomite 2, 3, 3A, 4, 5, 6 and 7. Prior to said claims being purchased by the applicant, the claims were mined by the respondent through a tribute agreement which respondent had entered into with Agricultural& Rural Development Authority (ARDA). The tribute agreement expired on the 7th September 1989. ARDA sold the claims to the applicant in 2009 thus giving the... More
