The Applicants are former employees of the Respondent. The Respondent is a registered company engaged in the beverage manufacturing business. In February, 2011, the Respondent moved premises to the Cold Storage Company premises. By end of May, 2011 electricity had been disconnected from the premises. This resulted in reduction of the business by 20%. The Respondent continued to pay its employees whist awaiting reconnection of electricity supplies. Electricity was restored in October, 2011 but was then disconnected in June, 2012. The electricity supplies have not been reconnected to date. More
On 24 August 2018 I heard an application for spoliation and granted the following order in favour of the applicant after delivering an ex tempore judgment.
“It be and is hereby ordered that÷
1. Applicant is restored unhindered possession of stand 8282 Kirkman Gardens, Harare and second respondent shall forthwithremove 1st respondent and his cabin from stand 8282 Kirkman Gardens, Harare.
2. 1st respondent is ordered to maintain peace and applicant’s undisturbed access to stand 8282 Kirkman Gardens Harare.” More
J: This is an application for confirmation of a provisional order that was granted on 25 November 2016. The relief that is now being sought is an order declaring the applicant to be the owner of stand number 7804 Belvedere West, Harare More
This is an application for summary judgment wherein the applicant seeks the following relief:-
(a) An order evicting the respondent from premises known as 36 Miranzi Road, Kambanji, Harare.
(b) Payment of arrear rentals in the sum of US$16 00 for the months of July 2009 to December 2009.
(c) Holding over damages at the rate of US$300 monthly from January 2010 up to the time the respondent vacates or is enacted from the premises, and
(d) Costs of suit. More
This is an appeal against part of the judgment of the Magistrate sitting at Harare Civil Magistrate court on 7 December 2021.The second appellant and the respondent are husband and wife married on 22 September 1993 under [Chapter 5:11] and their marriage still subsists. See exhibit 1 (the marriage certificate). Both jointly owned Stand Number 5868 Westlea, Harare, and regarded it as their matrimonial home as per exhibit 2 (the memorandum of agreement signed by the parties). The first appellant and the respondent are blood sisters. More
[1] This is an appeal against a judgment of the Labour Court dismissing an application for the review of an arbitral award in favour of the first respondent. The second respondent is the arbitrator whose award is the genesis of the application for review. The arbitrator did not file papers in the court a quo and did not appear before this Court. As a consequence, there is only one respondent. After hearing the parties in this matter we allowed the appeal with costs. The substantive order will be set out in detail after the discussion of our reasons for judgment... More
The respondent was dismissed from the appellant’s employ following disciplinary proceedings. On appeal to the G & DC Appeals Committee, the respondent was successful. The G & DC altered the severity of the charge. It alsoreversed the dismissal penalty to a final written warning. This aggrieved the appellant and it appealed to the National Employment Council Appeals Board of the Banking Undertaking (NEC). The NEC declined from considering the merits of the case and dismissed the appeal noting that the appeal had been noted a day out of time. The time frames are set out in the applicable Code. More
Respondent was employed by the Appellant as a clerk for 24 years. She was stationed at the Appellant’s Borrowdale Branch. Respondent, like any other employee of Appellant was entitled to a school fees benefit. To access such benefit, Respondent had to submit acceptable documentation from the school attended by her children. More
This is an application for the joinder of the first respondent as a third party in Case No. HC 12970/12. The application was instituted in terms of Order 14 Rule 93 of the Rules of this Court. The application is opposed by the first respondent. After hearing argument from counsel I granted the relief sought with some amendments to the draft order and gave brief reasons. I indicated to the parties that my full written reasons would be given upon the request of either party. The first respondent has written a letter requesting to be furnished with the written reasons... More
The plaintiff in this case seeks the delivery of two new Toyota Hilux IMV motor vehicles in terms of an agreement of sale between the parties. In the alternative, it claims damages for breach of contract based on the current market value of the vehicles in the sum of US$107,825.15. The defendant denies having entered into any agreement of sale and avers that the plaintiff engaged the defendant as its agent in sourcing the vehicles from third party suppliers. More
The plaintiff’s declaration reads:-
“1. The plaintiff’s claim is for payment of the balance owing in respect of a running account for various transactions.
2. On or about 07 November 2008, Mr Nhemachena who was the financial
advisor of the defendant drew up two reconciliation (sic) which are
annexed hereto marked “A” and “B”.
3. That the reconciliations so prepared were agreed between the plaintiff and the defendant.
4. In respect of annexure “A” the balance of $32 074.13 was reduced by a
payment of $8 000.00 and in respect of annexure “B” the amount of $30
360.26 was reduced... More
This is an appeal against the entire judgment of the High court (“the court a quo”), wherein it removed the appellant’s matter from the roll in order to pave way for the finalisation of an application filed before the Constitutional Court under case number CCZ 12/22. More
On 14 July 2022, I delivered an ex tempore judgment to the effect that the present application be removed from the roll in order to pave way for the finalisation of the constitutional matter filed before the Constitutional Court under CCZ12/22. The applicant subsequently requested the reasons for the judgment. Consequently, this judgment seeks to advance the reasons therefor. More
Sometime in 2012, the fifth respondent obtained judgment under HC 3331/14 against the first respondent. This was a result of the latter’s failure to pay the balance of USD$116 000 after he sold, on instruction, the fifth respondent’s piece of land in Mount Pleasant. The court ordered the sale in execution of the first respondent’s property known as the remainder of Subdivision C of Lot 6 of Lots 190,191,192,193,194 and 195, Highlands Estate of Welmoed (hereinafter referred to as “the property”). On 18 September 2017, the appellant participated in the Sheriff’s sale by public auction, of the first respondent’s property,... More
The appellant and the respondent executed a written contract on 12 May 2018, in terms of which the appellant was required to perform construction work for the respondent at a total cost of US$36 962.00. The contract stipulated that the respondent was required to pay a deposit of US$10 000 and thereafter pay the balance in instalments of US$ 900.00 per month over 31 months. The respondent duly made her payments in terms of the contract until February 2020 when she advised that she could not pay the money due to ill health. More
