Welcome to Midlands State University Library

Court Judgements



Browse all Court Judgements
On 13 July 2023 Applicant filed a Court Application for Review in terms of Rule 62 of SI 202/2021. The Grounds of Review centered on the fourth Respondent’s decision to grant the consent to sell stand 14410/5 Kuwadzana Township Harare, a property belonging to the late Socrates Zimunhu’s Estates. In her Founding Affidavit, Applicant stated that she was customarily married to the deceased sometime in 1994. Three children were born out of the marriage. In 2003 she divorced the deceased in the Magistrates Court under case number MC 243/03. She was awarded 40% of the value of the matrimonial home,... More

The dispute before me started as an opposed application before MAWADZE J in 2014. On 8 May, 2014, after going through all the papers placed before him, MAWADZE J’s view was that the interests of justice would be better served if the matter was referred to trial for a proper ventilation of all the issues. He ordered that the court application shall stand as the summons and the notice of opposition as the appearance to defend. A declaration was to be filed within 10 days of the court order and thereafter the matter would proceed to trial in terms of... More

The applicant is Suscaden Investments (Private Limited a duly incorporated company in accordance with the laws of Zimbabwe. The first respondent is Parks and Wildlife Management Authority, a statutory body incorporated in terms of the Parks and Wildlife Act [Chapter 20:14] “Act”. Its functions are set out in s 4 of the Act. The Authority inter-alia controls, manages and maintains inter-alia national parks, sanctuaries, recreational parks and provides facilities for visitors. The second respondent is The Minister of Environment Climate Change, Tourism and Hospitality Industry. The Minister administers the Act. The Minister did not file any opposing papers in this... More

On 10 October 2022, the applicant filed this urgent chamber application in which it seeks interim relief that is set out in the draft provisional order as follows: “TERMS OF FINAL ORDER SOUGHT: That you show cause to the Honourable Court why a final order should not be made on the following terms:- 1. (a) That 1st and 2nd Respondents together with anybody acting for and on behalf of the Respondents be and are hereby interdicted from interfering in any way, directly or indirectly with the Applicant’s occupation, business operations and rights based on the Deed of Settlement and Lease... More

The respondent is a university constituted as a body corporate in terms of the Chinhoyi University of Technology Act [Chapter 25:23] (hereinafter called the CUT Act). The appellant was employed by the respondent as a secretary in the Graduate Business School Department from April 2012 to October 2018. Allegations of misconduct were levelled against her for contravening s 4(a) of the Labour (National Employment Code of Conduct) Regulations SI 15/2006 (hereinafter called the National Code of Conduct). It was alleged that between 5 and 15 September 2018 she misplaced sensitive documents, being student dissertation assessment forms and the blue sheet... More

The relevant statutes and instruments in this matter are as follows, 1. The Labour Act Chapter 28:01 hereafter called the Act. 2. The ChinhoyiUnivesity of Technology Act Chapter 25:03 hereafter called the CUT Act. 3. The Labour (National Employment Code of Conduct) Regulations S.I. 15/06 hereafter called the National Code. Applicant filed an application for review by this Court of her dismissal from employment by Respondent. The grounds for review were two-fold namely illegality and irrationality. I shall deal with the grounds adseriatim. More

In the instant case the applicant seeks the following order as per the draft order: More

Appellant was employed by the respondent as a driver/salesman. Following allegations of misconduct, appellant was brought before the Disciplinary Committee which found him guilty. A subsequent appeal to the Works Council confirmed the decision of the Disciplinary Committee. More

On 1 July 2015 the respondent sued the applicants for a sum of USD 60 000.00 being damages for malicious prosecution. He alleged that the applicants wrongfully and maliciously caused his arrest, detention and prosecution for contempt of court as a result of which he suffered damages in the sum of USD60 000.00. More

This application involves a long-standing dispute over the control of Glencairn Mine, Kadoma (the Mine). The 4th applicant and the 1st and 2nd respondents are shareholders in the 3rd applicant which owns the Mine at the centre of the dispute. More

The applicants seek an order declaring the respondent liable for contempt of court. It is proposed that the respondent be committed to prison for a period of thirty days wholly suspended on condition that the respondent and all those claiming through her shall within twenty four hours of this order vacate stand 1089 Tynwald, Harare. More

This is an appeal against the whole judgement of the High Court of Zimbabwe handed down on 9 February 2018. More

On the 30th of January 2022, the applicant was driving his employer’s vehicle registration No. ADS 1099 along Bulawayo – Victoria Falls Road. At the 335 km peg he was involved in a road traffic accident in which the motor vehicle driven by the applicant collided with another motor vehicle as a result of which that other vehicle suffered certain damages. Following the accident, applicant was charged with contravening section 52 (2) of the Road Traffic Act Chapter 13:11 “Negligent Driving.” He appeared before the 1st respondent, pleaded guilty and was convicted in terms of section 271 (2) (b) as... More

On 22 May 2022, I dismissed the applicant`s prayer for condonation of late noting of appeal. Applicant addressed a letter on 9 August 2023 requesting written reasons thereof. The letter went thus; - “Kindly take note that, I filed an application for condonation of late noting of appeal with the High Court on 11th November 2021 under case number CON 279/21. The application was dismissed in chambers before honourable Mr. Justice Chilimbe on the 22nd of May 2022. More

This is an appeal from a decision of the Chief Executive Officer of Respondent dismissing Appellant from employment. Appellant was dismissed after having been found guilty of gross incompetence and neglect of duty in violation of item 3 section C to Annexure 11 of Respondent’s Code of Conduct More