The plaintiff instituted the instant action claiming a sum of US$100 000.00 in respect of defamation damages. The claim arises from the publication by the defendant, a publisher of newspapers, of an article under its letters to the editor section, of an article entitled, “Police, Army please Act”. More
The appellant was employed by the respondent as a supervisor. The parties mutually terminated the employment contract on 4 November 2014.
The agreement was reduced into writing and appellant was paid his terminal benefits in terms of the deed of settlement.
In August 2015 the appellant referred a complaint to a labour officer against respondent for non-payment of overtime.
When conciliation efforts failed the matter was referred to an arbitrator. The arbitrator dismissed the claim predominantly on the basis that appellant failed to prove his claim. More
The circumstances leading to this appeal maybe summarised as follows:
On the 19th September 2014 the Appellant entered into a lease agreement with Letwin Emmanuel in respect of property known as 4 Kinross, Alexandra Park, Harare.The property was managed by Luxury Real Estate Agents and the rentals were supposed to be paid to the said Letwin Emmanuel, through the estate agent’s account or directly to Letwin Emmanuel. Letwin Emmanuel was the legal owner of the property and had title deeds. In terms of the written lease agreement between the parties rent was set at US1 000 00 per month. More
The applicants in this matter seek an order in the following terms:
1. That first respondent be and is hereby barred from disposing of and effecting transfer of house No 16036, 6th Street, Sunningdale 2, Harare.
2. That fourth respondent be and is hereby ordered not to effect any transfer of House No 16036, 6th Street, Sunningdale 2, Harare.
3. That House No 16036, 6th Street Sunningdale 2 Harare be and is hereby registered in the names of Sydney Mutara, Christine Mutara and Solomon Mutara in equal shares or;
4. Alternatively: That house no 6118 St Marys’ Chitungwiza and Stand... More
This matter was set down as an application for confirmation of a ruling by a labour officer in terms of Section 93 (5) Labour Amendment Act. On the hearing date the employer raised a point in limine to the effect that the matter was improperly before the court. This was so taking into account two recent decisions of Sakarombe v Montana Meats SC-4-10 and Isoquant Investment v Darku No CCZ 6/20. The employer’s argument was that the labour officer sat on the matter as if it were an appellate body contrary to the spirit of Montana Meats (supra). It also... More
This judgement only deals with points in limine raised by the respondent employer. The 2 points are, that there is no clear relief sought by the appellant thus making the appeal fatally defective and susceptible to being struck off the roll.The2nd point is that appellant has raised in grounds 1 and 8 review issues in an appeal. Ground 1 pertains toflouting of timelines by therespondent employer and ground 8 relates to issues around minutes of the disciplinary proceedings. In like manner it is respondent’s view that these 2 grounds have to be expurged from the record for being bad at... More
An arbitral award was made in this matter dealing with the parties’ employment dispute. Both parties were not satisfied by the arbitral award of 14 November 2011. The appellants noted an appeal to this court under case number LC/H/694/11 and the Respondent filed a cross appeal under case number LC/H/698/11. An application was made to this court for consolidation of the two cases. The application was granted. To avoid confusion in references Sydney Rukweza and Godfrey Duwati shall be referred to as the appellants and Marondera Rural District Council shall be referred to as the cross appellant. More
The plaintiff issued summons against the defendants claiming $ZWL 500 000-00 for unlawful arrest and detention. The plaintiff sought damages from the defendants based on vicarious liability emanating from a claim that the plaintiff was apprehended, assaulted and detained by employees of the first and fourth defendants. The defendants defended the claim and proceeded to file an exception and special plea on the basis that the summons and declaration by the plaintiff lacks the material articulations that establish vicarious liability. The summons and declaration is devoid of the names of the individuals who committed the offence against the plaintiff. Further... More
The background to the matter is that the respondent issuedsummons in the court a quo against the appellant for eviction and arrear rentals. The basis for the claim was that the respondent entered into an agreement with the applicant whereby the respondent would sublet to the applicant some shop space, which he rented from Sinoa holdings (Pvt) Ltd. It was a material term that the applicant would pay $860-00 per month as rentals. It was the respondent’s claim that the applicant breached the terms of the agreement by failing to pay rent resulting in arrears in the sum of $2... More
The Appellant noted an appeal against the determination by the National Employment Council for the Textile Industry Appeals Board dated 8 April 2013 which determination upheld the Appellant’s conviction on the charge of theft and the imposition of the dismissal penalty. More
The plaintiff issued summons against the four defendants claiming payment by the defendant of the sum of US$70 505.05 being the capital sum to be used to purchase pension benefits from a registered pension fund to be nominated by the plaintiff, interest on the aforesaid sum at the prescribed rate calculated from the date of the summons to the date of full payment as well as costs of suit. More
Matirasa Katsvairo and Tawainga Arnold Katsvairo who are the first and second respondents contracted a civil marriage on 25 December 1965. The marriage still subsists. In 1979 the applicant and the second respondent entered into an unregistered customary law union. On 8 November 1989 they purported to register a customary law marriage under the African Marriages Act [Chapter 238]. In registering that marriage the second respondent gave his marital status as a person who was already married under the African Marriages Act [Chapter 238]. This purported marriage between the applicant and the second respondent was later declared null and void... More
This is a matrimonial cause wherein it is common cause that the
marriage has irretrievably broken down. The only issue for the determination of the court
was agreed by the parties at a pre-trial conference before as Judge as being -
"What would constitute a fair and reasonable division of the matrimonial assets?" More
This case is founded upon the declaration which was filed by the plaintiff in this court on 25 June 2005 and whose relevant contents can be restated as follows:-
On or about March 1999 the plaintiff and the first defendant entered into an agreement in two parts. The first part was that the parties would jointly purchase property known as the Remainder of Cherutombo, Marondera from Dulys (Private) Limited with the plaintiff paying 1/3 and the first defendant 2/3 of the price that was to be set by Dulys (Private) Limited. More
