This court application is brought in terms of Order 32 of the High Court Rules, 1971 (before they were repealed) as read with section 175 (6) and section 85 (1) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe.
Order 32 deals with the procedure for applications. Section 175 (6) of the Constitution provides that; “(6) When deciding a constitutional matter within its jurisdiction a court may—
(a) declare that any law or conduct that is inconsistent with the Constitution is invalid to the extent of the inconsistency;
(b) make any order that is just and equitable, including an order limiting the retrospective effect... More
This is an appeal against the decision off the respondent employer’s disciplinary committee which found the appellant employeeguilty of conduct inconsistent with the conditions of her contract in contravention of section 4 (a) of the Model Code. Events leading to the appellant’s dismissal were that during a management and board meeting she shouted obscenities and banged the table thus putting the meeting into disrepute. More
On the 5th April, 2012 I issued a judgment in which
Applicant was awarded back pay and benefits in Zimbabwe dollars (Z$15 220 000 and Z$578 492.00) which amount was to be converted into United States dollars (US$).
On appeal to the Supreme Court, the award was set aside and the matter was remitted to me to consider:
- Whether the amount in Zimbabwe dollars should be converted into foreign currency if so, the rate applicable taking into account the principles of equity enshrined in the Labour Act.
Applicant is of the view that the amounts should be converted into... More
On 25th January 2012, Applicant filed an application for review by this Court. Her founding affidavit, as amplied by her submissions show, the following facts:
1.
She worked for Respondent as a Handling Supervisor based at Norton.
2.
On 26TH January 2010 she was suspended without pay.
3.
On 27th January 2010 she was charged with misconduct.
4.
On 4th and 11th February 2010 a disciplinary hearing was held.
5.
On 22nd February 2010 she was informed of the outcome of the hearing through a letter of dismissal.
6.
On 1st March 2010 she appealed against her dismissal. More
On 29 March 2008, the harmonised presidential, parliamentary and council elections were held in Zimbabwe. The petitioner stood as the candidate on behalf of Zimbabwe African National Union (Patriotic Front) ‘ZANU PF’ for the House of Assembly seat in the constituency of Mbare. The first respondent contested the seat on behalf of the Movement for Democratic Change ‘MDC’. The second respondent was responsible to conduct and supervise the polls. On 30 March, 2008 the first respondent was declared the winner of the seat. More
The applicants appeared in this court praying that this court should grant the order in the Draft Order which states as follows:
“It is ordered that
(1) The respondent shall pay to the first, second, third and fourth applicants by way of salaries and benefits with effect from 9 April and 24 May 2012 respectively, broken down as follows:
TendayiTamanikwa, the sum of US$77 504-93
Frank Tinarwo the sum of US$77 984-93
EmmersonPamire, the sum of US$76 344-93
TendaiMombeshora, the sum of US$69 223-04
(2) The respondent shall pay the costs of this application.” More
This is an application for the placement of the first respondent under Provisional Judicial Management in terms of section 207 as read with section 206 (g) of the Companies Act (Chapter 24:03). More
This application is for an extension of time within which to file a notice of opposition in case number HC 2301/19. The order sought is couched in the following terms:
1. The applicant’s late filing of the notice of opposition be and is hereby condoned.
2. The applicant is hereby required to file and serve its notice of opposition on the 2nd respondent’s court application for review within 48 hours of this order.
3. No order as to costs.
The application is opposed.
During hearing, Mr Sibanda, counsel for the applicant after trying to argue in support of this application,... More
In this matter the applicant filed an urgent chamber application asking for the placement of the 1st respondent in provisional liquidation in terms of section 207 as read with section 206 of the Companies Act Chapter 24:03.
Section 206 provides for circumstances under which a company may be wound up by a court and section 207 provides for how the petition for winding up is presented. Section 206 (g) provides that a company may be wound up by the court if the court is of the opinion that it is just and equitable that the company should be wound up.... More
This application was initially set down for hearing on the 8th of February 2022. The applicant, then a self-actor, made an application for a postponement on the basis that he had engaged a legal practitioner but had not yet finalised with him. Although the application was opposed, the court granted the application and indicated to him that the matter would proceed on the 11th of February 2022. On that date, the applicant’s legal practitioner appeared and indicated that the Advocate whom they had engaged had advised him that morning that she was unavailable due to ill-health. The court indicated that... More
The applicant is the former registered owner of an immovable property known as a certain piece of land situate in the District of Salisbury called Stand 425 Marlborough Township Extension 2 of Marlborough measuring 6 808 square metres which he held under Deed of Transfer Number 10289/2002 (the property). The property was sold in execution of a judgment debt of US$39, 000.00 and costs of suit granted in favour of the third respondent herein against the applicant and Micromart (Private) Limited (Micromart) on 15 February 2016, under HC 9923/14. The second respondent purchased the property from a Sheriff’s sale. Its... More
This is a court application for a Declaratory Order and Consequential relief made in terms of s 14 of the High Court Act [Chapter 7.06] in which the applicants seek an order couched in the following terms:
That the decision of the second respondent to sell late David Govere’s private property namely Number 52 Hessel Road, Borrowdale, Harare, through a skewed private treaty to an interested party be declared unlawful.
That the Surety Agreement relied upon to regard the late David Govere as a co-principal debtor to COLDRAC Products (Pvt) Limited and the attachment of his personal private property be... More
This is an appeal against an arbitral award.
Appellants’ ground of appeal was that the Arbitrator erred in concluding that the termination of the contract was lawful because the contracts were fixed term contracts that had expired.
The Arbitrator’s term of reference was to determine if the dismissal was unfair. More
