Most of the facts in this matter are common cause. Respondent was in the employ of the appellant. Following allegations of misconduct, respondent was suspended by the appellant. No disciplinary hearing was held resulting in the respondent being called back to work. Respondent was re-suspended on 21 March 2011. An attempt was made to hold a disciplinary hearing but this was not concluded. The respondent took the matter to the Labour Officer and the matter was referred to arbitration. The arbitrator found the respondent guilty on the one charge and not guilty on the other. Further, the arbitrator ordered payment... More
As if in serious and desperate effort to get the attention of the court the two parties in these two cases filed cross urgent applications in this court on 14 October and 17 October 2013. More
In this urgent chamber application the applicants seek a provisional order in the following terms:-
“TERMS OF THE FINAL ORDER SOUGHT
1. That the 1st to 7th respondents, their families, workers and/or agents are hereby ordered to restore to the first to third applicant companies and its workers to unhindered access, occupation and possession of the remainder of Weltevrede Estate also called Bhachi Farm (hereinafter called the farm) and specifically:- More
This appeal was heard on 31 March 2017. At the conclusion of submissions by counsel this Court issued the following order:
“Having considered submissions by counsel, we are of the unanimous view that this is a proper case for remittal to the court a quo. Accordingly we order as follows:
1. The appeal is allowed with costs.
2. The judgment of the court a quo is set aside.
3. The matter is remitted to the High Court for a determination of the merits by a different judge.
4. The reasons for this order will be made available on request by... More
The applicant seeks a final interdict barring the five respondents from interfering with its mining operations on pieces of land situate in on communal lands in the Zaka District of Masvingo Province. Through the affidavit deposed to by its director, Boysen Mutembwa, it alleges that the five respondents are conducting illegal mining activities on some of its registered mining blocks, a claim which the respondents deny. It further avers that it is the registered holder of mining claims known as Bvuma Mining project which it obtained sometime in 2017 and 2018. It has since affected developments thereon pursuant to its... More
Respondent faced allegations of misconduct and a hearing was given. Meanwhile, Respondent attended at a Doctor’s rooms and the Doctor instructed that she take a rest. This was communicated to the Respondent through the Matron who was a senior supervisor at Respondent’s work-station. Meanwhile, Respondent’s representatives approached the Respondent with a view to having the matter postponed to a further date for a hearing. This was not entertained by the Hearing Officer who ruled that the matter was to proceed. The matter was heard in Respondent’s absence. Respondent made an application for review to this Court. Both parties filed submissions... More
Arbitrator J Madziya, issued an arbitration award at Harare date-stamped
25 November 2015. He ordered appellant to reinstate respondent or pay her damages in lieu of reinstatement. Appellant then appealed to this court against the award. Respondent opposed the appeal. More
The applicants approached the court in chambers by way of urgent chamber application. Basing on the documents filed of record in particular the certificate of urgency the court set the matter down so as to be addressed. On the date of hearing the 29/3/12 the court was served with opposing documents by the respondent at almost time of hearing, for expedience the court requested both counsel for the applicant Mr Sakutukwa and Mr Chivore for the respondent to address the court on urgency and merits. It was clearly spelt out to the parties in the event that the Court made... More
Before the court is a mining dispute. The parties herein elected to progress their trial cause as a special case in terms of r 52 of the High Court Rules 2021.The agreed statement of facts recorded the following events; -
[ 2] The defendant sold to plaintiff, by agreement dated 11 October 2021, its rights and interest in a set of mining blocks for a total consideration of US$ 2,050,000. The blocks were registered under number 41356BM, 41357B, 41358BM and 41359M and located at a place described as Berryl-Rose in the Mfurudzi Safari Area of Shamva District. I shall refer... More
This is an application for rescission of a default judgment in terms of Rule 29(1)(a) of the High Court Rules, 2021 (the Rules). The application is opposed.
Rule 29(1)(a) of the Rules provides as follows;
“29(1) The court or a judge may, in addition to any other powers it or he or she may have, on its own initiative or upon the application of any affected party, correct, rescind or vary-
(a) an order or judgement erroneously sought or erroneously granted in the absence of any party affected thereby; or…” More
This is an application for leave to appeal a judgment of this court to the Supreme Court.
Appeals from this court to the Supreme Court are provided for in section 92 F (1) of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01] (The Act) which reads:
“(1) An appeal on a question of law only shall lie to the Supreme Court from any decision of the Labour Court.”
It is therefore trite that only questions or a question of law should be raised as grounds of appeal. More
This is a court application in which the relief sought is the following declaratory order:
1.That the decision of the first respondent declaring forfeited to the State property belonging to the applicant, the property in question being four motor vehicles and their trailers, namely TRUCK HLH056FS (TRAILER TVH294GP); TRUCK HLH051FS (TRAILER FZ25WGGP); TRUCK HLH049FS (TRAILER VDW723GP) and TRUCK HJZ 717FS (TRAILER JF58CWGP), be and is hereby declared null and void and of no force or effect. AS CONSEQUENTIAL RELIEF, IT IS ORDERED:
2.That the decision of the first respondent declaring forfeited to the State property belonging to the applicant, the... More
TheApplicantshave approached this court on an urgent basis in terms of Rule 59(6) of the High Court Rules, 2021 seeking the relief of a declaratory order in terms of Section 14 of the High Court Act [Chapter7:06]. In particular, the applicants pray for the following relief:
“1. The Application for a declaratur be and is hereby granted.
2. That the amendment of Section 5.1 of the firstrespondents does not require that representatives of the Council appointed in December 2020 to be removed from their appointments before the end of their term of office.
3. The appointments by first to eighthrespondent... More
1. That it be and is hereby declared that the Conditions Precedent set forth in Part 9 of the Scheme of Arrangement have not been complied with.
2. That it be and is hereby declared that Applicant’s bid cannot be terminated on the basis that was accepted by the members and creditors of the Target Companies upon completion of the relevant tender process and that there is no legal justification for any payment obligations to be triggered by the Applicant before the Conditions Precedent of the Scheme of Arrangement are satisfied.
3. That it be and is hereby declared that... More
This is an appeal against the decision of the Magistrates Court sitting at Masvingo confirming the cancellation of a Lease Agreement between the parties, ejecting the appellant from the leased premises, ordering the payment of holding over damages and costs of suit. More
