Firstthe plaintiffobtained an order for the joinderto his suit ofthe second plaintiff and third defendant before my brother Judge Mawadze on 28 September 2015. The order requiredthe third defendant (Wintertons Legal Practitioners), to file its plea within 10 days.
Without giving notice of intention to amend, the plaintiffs filed two “amended declarations” on 8 October 2015. On the same day plaintiffs proceeded to “serve” the amended declarations and order of joinder. They filed the affidavit of service of the first plaintiff as “proof of service” on 4 November 2015. More
This is an application for bail pending appeal. The applicants were convicted by the Magistrates Court at Chivhu of four counts of Stock Theft as defined in s 114 (2) (a) of the Criminal Law [Codification and Reform] Act [Chapter 9:23]. More
In a judgment dated 2 November 2018, this court set aside Arbitrator Bvumbe’s arbitral award. Applicants are dissatisfied with that decision and intend to approach the Supreme Court on appeal. This is therefore an application for leave to appeal in terms of s 92 F of the Labour Act, [Chapter 28:01]. More
The allegations against the appellants are that they rented a house in Bulawayo, being house No. 2024 Mahatshula (Mahatshula house) for the purpose of storage of stollen copper cables. In count 1, it is alleged that the police recovered from this house copper cables varying from overhead copper conductors, transformer copper bars, armored cables and scrap copper from electric motor winders and two digital scales. Scrap copper with a weight of 2600 kg valued at USD52 000.00 was recovered. In count 2, it is alleged that the Zimbabwe Electricity Transmission and Distribution Company (ZETDC) identified the recovered armored and overhead... More
This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court Harare handed down on 21 November 2018 convicting the appellant of murder with actual intent as defined in s 47 (1) (a) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23] (the “Act”) and sentencing him to death. The automatic appeal is against the sentence of death. After hearing submissions from counsel for both parties we with their consent dismissed the appellant’s appeal and indicated that reasons would follow in due course. These are they. More
This is an application for review of the Master of the High Court’s decision which was made on 12 October 2005. The applicants cited two grounds for review. Firstly, they submitted that the decision was grossly irregular in that it failed to recognize and uphold the clear intention of the deceased from the document purported to be his will. Secondly, the applicant submitted that the decision rejecting the will was grossly unreasonable. More
This is a civil appeal against a decision of the Magistrates Court sitting at Gweru.
The matter came before the Learned Magistrate as an urgent chamber application for eviction. In the court a quo the respondent herein was the applicant while the appellant herein was the respondent. More
The brief factual background is that the applicant on 6 November, 2013 appeared before a disciplinary committee to answer a charge of failure to follow a lawful instruction issued by his supervisor. He was found guilty and a penalty of dismissal was consequently imposed. On 26 November, 2013 he appealed under the provisions of the relevant code of conduct to the Managing Director. The Managing Director in his determination upheld the decision of the Disciplinary Committee. The next level of appeal under the code was the NEC Appeals Committee. On 21 January 2013 the applicant noted an appeal to that... More
This is an appeal against an award by an arbitrator. After hearing the matter the Learned Arbitrator confirmed the appellant’s dismissal from the respondent’s employ. Aggrieved by that award the appellant appeals to this court on the following grounds:
“1. The arbitrator grossly misdirected himself by concluding that it is legally correct for the respondent to selectively charge an individual for alleged misconduct arising from a collective decision of a board formed in terms of statute. In this case out of six members of the Procurement Committee only three members were charged and others were not, without any reason being... More
The only issue to be decided in this matter is the scale of costs By way of background the employee filed with this court a Notice to withdraw an application which he had filed with this court.
He however did not tender wasted costs. This prompted the employer to invite him to tender costs. Again he did not and this gave rise to the sitting where both parties presented before this court to argue the issue of costs only. The point of departure in the matter is that the employer is calling for punitive costs to be awarded against the... More
Applicant applied to this Court for condonation of a belated appeal. The application was made in terms of Rule 22 of the Labour Court Rules, 2017. Respondent opposed the application. More
The first respondent is the surviving spouse and widow of Josia Tungamirai who died in South Africa on 25th August 2005. Pending the acceptance of a will that the decease had drawn up prior to his death, the first respondent was appointed Curator Bonis of his estate. The second and third applicants are the sons of the deceased from unions with other women, although they were brought up by the first respondent and the deceased. More
Appellant appealed to this Court against his discharge from employment by Respondent. The ground of appeal was worded as follows,
“The decision by respondent to uphold my discharge was misplaced because it was based on a wrong admission of guilty which was made at the behest of the disciplinary committee which misled and pressurised the respondent to admit what he had not done. The admission did not consider the mitigatory issues tendered by the appellant.”
In addition Appellant filed Heads of Argument in support of his appeal. The Heads declaimed thus, More
This is an application for the dismissal of Respondent’s appeal in terms of Rule 19 (3)(a) of this honourable Court’s rules. The appeal was filed on 19 August 2013. The notice of response was filed on 28 August 2013. In terms of Rule 19 Appellant was supposed to file Heads of Argument within fourteen days of receiving the response. This requirement was not complied with. More
This is appeal against an arbitral award in which the arbitral award in which the arbitrator had to determine who the correct respondent was between the cited respondent and a sister company called K M Agribusiness, also known as Caprisun Agricultural Sales (Pvt) Ltd (hereinafter referred to as Caprisun).
The arbitrator found that the appellant had wrongly sued the respondent as his former employer yet his correct former employer was Caprisun and dismissed the claim. More
