This is an opposed application for the setting aside of the judgment given in default of the applicants in case no. HC 6787/17. The judgment was granted on 23 August 2017. The applicants in an affidavit deposed to by the second applicant state that they only became aware of the order on 25 April 2018 when it was served upon them as an annexure to an affidavit in a different case, HC 3556/18. The present application was filed on 26 April 2018. More
The Chivero chieftainship dispute has spawned yet another lawsuit.
The applicant and the first respondent are descendants of the founder of the Chivero clan. They are tussling for the office of substantive Chief Chivero. More
The parties herein got married under the Marriage Act [Chapter 5:11] at Harare on 25 November 2006. Three children were born of the marriage namely Ryan Mufaro (born 10 October 2007) Bryan Tinotenda (born 23 March 2009) and Tessa Bryana Nyasha (born 13 September 2023. The marriage suffered a serious setback leading to plaintiff filling summons for divorce. Before filing for divorce the parties tried counselling to no avail. Since July 2020 they have been living separately. According to the plaintiff the relationship took a turn in the negative direction when defendant asked for money from her on her pay... More
On 24 October 2017, I dismissed the applicant’s urgent application for a stay of execution. Appellant has a filed an appeal and is requesting my reasons for dismissing his application. Although the appellant has not sought leave to appeal as he is required to. I have settled my reasons in writing in the interests of justice. More
The appellant was employed by the respondent as a teacher at one of respondent’s school. He was dismissed on account of absenting himself from duty without authority. He then approached this court on appeal.
Before the matter proceeded into the merits a point in limine was taken for the respondent.
It was submitted that the appellant filed an application for review before the second respondent. No determination by the second respondent has been made. To that extent the appeal was improperly before the court. Further to that it was submitted that Section 51 of the Public Service Regulations “the Regulations”... More
The appellant was charged and convicted of four counts of robbery in terms of s126 of the Criminal Law [Codification and Reform] Act Chapter 9:23. He pleaded not guilty but was nevertheless convicted after a full trial. He was sentenced to 4 years imprisonment on each count to make a total of 16 years imprisonment, with 4 years suspended for 5 years on stated conditions. He is serving an effective 12 years imprisonment. He is appealing against both conviction and the sentence. More
The applicant approached this court for a declaratur in terms of s 68 (1) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe as read with s 3(1) of the Administrative Justice Act and r 59(1) of the High Court Rules, 2021. The relief sought is set out in the draft order as follows:
“IT IS DECLARED THAT:
1. Statutory Instrument 10 of 2022 does not apply to a returning immigrant who had purchased his/her vehicle for import on or before the 16th of January 2022, who has been, or is subsequently granted returning resident status.
2. The Applicant is entitled to the immigration... More
1st and 2nd applicants were arrested by the police and arraigned before the court of the Regional Magistrate on a charge of smuggling as defined in s182 of the Customs and Excise Act (Chapter 23:03). The 3rd applicant is a juristic person and South African registered company which employs 1st and 2nd applicants. The two who were represented by their legal practitioners of record pleaded not guilty but were convicted of the offence charged and sentenced to undergo five years of imprisonment. The goods and heavy truck were forfeited to the State. More
Appellant is appealing against the decision of the arbitrator who upheld his dismissal by the Respondent company which he used to work for.
The fact of the case are that Appellant who was in the Respondent’s employ as a fleet manager was summarily dismissed by the Respondent for contravening the Transport Industry Code of conduct, it being alleged that he had committed acts of gross negligence contrary to expectation of his duties. More
This is an application for a review of criminal proceedings which are pending before the first respondent, in the Regional Court, Eastern Division, Harare. What has necessitated the application whilst the criminal proceedings are still pending is an interlocutory application that was made by the applicant for referral of the proceedings to the Constitutional Court. More
The applicants are members of Citizens Coalition for Change (“CCC”) - a political party which plays opposition politics in Zimbabwe. All ten of them and nine others who are not part of this application were elected into Parliament on the CCC party ticket on 1 April 2022. The colour YELLOW is, in a large measure, associated with the dress code of members of CCC. They wear yellow shirts, dresses and other forms of dress during meetings, rallies or other gatherings of the party. Yellow, judicial notice is taken, would appear to be the members’ uniform, so to speak. More
The brief background giving rise to these applications are as follows, on 10 December 2020, first, second and third Respondents instituted summons for defamation against Applicant under case number HC 7528/20. Applicant then raised an exception and a special plea in bar in those proceedings, which Justice Manzunzu dismissed. Aggrieved by the dismissal, applicant made an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court which application was dismissed by MANZUNZU J in default. Applicant then approached the Supreme Court under SC 143/23 which application was later withdrawn. Applicant then made another application under SC 274/23 which was struck off... More
The background facts to this application are as follows. The applicant is the Secretary General of the Movement for Democratic Change, a political party with representation in the country’s legislature and the executive arm of government. The first respondent is the magistrates who heard the appeal lodged by the applicant against the decision of the second respondent. The second respondent is a police officer. He is the Officer Commanding Harare Central District and, for the purposes s 26 of the Public Order and Security Act [Cap 11:17], he is in that capacity, the Regulating Authority of Harare Central District. More
This is an appeal against the sentence imposed upon the appellant by the magistrates court pursuant to a conviction on two counts of robbery as defined in s 126 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23]. More
In April 2007, the plaintiff issues summons against the defendant claiming the sum of $55 979 315-00, being the replacement value of the hydraulic pipes and fittings. The suit was defended. More
