On 20 January 2022 an entity called Chigami 2 Syndicate obtained judgment against the third respondent under case HC1840/21. That judgment led to the attachment of the third respondent’s equipment by the first respondent. Sometime in June 2023, the second respondent advertised the sale of the third respondent’s property in situ on 1 July 2023. The property to be sold comprised of a processing plant consisting of loading bin, crusher, vibrator, separator/sieve, siemens crusher, 2 x hammermills and separator, container control room with 3 x power control boxes (hereinafter called the equipment). The applicant was represented at the auction and... More
This is an appeal against the decision of the appeals officer dated 6 November 2023 wherein the appellant was found guilty and dismissed from employment. Appellant was employed as an Engineering Stores Clerk by the respondent and was responsible for sourcing materials required by the employer from suppliers. He was essentially the go between the respondent and the suppliers. The appellant through his position could source quotations from different suppliers and choose the most convenient. More
The background facts are that the applicant was employed by the respondent for 40 years. At the time when he was charged with the act of misconduct, he was employed as a store man. He was tasked with a duty to source various building materials. He proceeded to get three quotations and submitted them to his supervisor. One of the quotations was approved and the applicant’s supervisor signed a requisition for the supply of the required materials from the approved supplier. This was in September of 2022. More
The appellant appeals against the judgment of the High Court dated 9 September 2019, wherein the court a quo dismissed his appeal against conviction by the Magistrates’Court on a charge of criminal abuse of office under s 174 (1) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23](The Criminal Law Code). More
The background to this matter is that applicant and 1st respondent are related in that applicant is 1st respondent’s son. 1st respondent is also married to 2nd respondent who is applicant’s step mother. 3rd respondent is a legal entity wherein applicant, 1st and 2nd respondents are shareholders. Applicant lays claim to an immovable property known as 45 Southway Burnside. He avers that he purchased the property personally from his own funds but got it registered in the name of 3rd respondent. 1st and 2nd respondents have since made a resolution to sell the property and from the notice of opposition... More
1. This is an appeal against conviction on two counts of rape as defined in s 65 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23] (“the Code”).
2. The appellant was acquitted of one count wherein he had been charged of raping the same complainant. More
In terms of the Facility Letter which the parties signed on 15 February 2011, the plaintiff advanced the sum of $130 000.00 to the defendants. The maturity date of the loan was 15 February, 2012. More
This is an application for summary judgment in terms of r 64. The plaintiff issued summons claiming against the defendant the sum of $47 808-00 being the outstanding amount owed to it by the defendant arising from a personal loan advanced to the defendant. It also claimed interest at the rate of 15% per annum, a penalty on unpaid interest at the rate of 2 % per day from 31st August 2015 to date of payment in full plus costs on the legal practitioner and client scale. More
Applicants were arrested and charged with (i) contravening s 126 (1) (a) and (b) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23] ie. Robbery and (iii) rape as defined in s 65 1 (a) and (b) of the said Code. More
This matter is an urgent chamber application for stay of execution. The applicants are former employees of the 1st respondent while the 2nd respondent is cited in his official capacity.
The Magistrates Court sitting at Masvingo handed down two judgments in case numbers 712/19 and 713/19 and eviction was granted in 1st respondent’s favour. The applicants filed an appeal under case number 712/19 on the same day with the other appellants under case number 713/19 (SMM v Miriam Kwangwa & 77 Others). The applicants failed to file heads of argument as per the Rules of Court. The applicants seek to... More
This is an application for rescission of judgment. At the outset, and to avoid confusion it is important to state that this application is in terms of rule 63(1) of the High Court Rules, 1971. It is important to state this because the heading of this application is framed thus: court application for the rescission of judgment in terms of rule 449(1) (a) as read with rule 63(1) of the High Court Rules, 1971. Respondents objected to this approach on the basis that an application for rescission cannot be anchored on both rules 63 and 449. At the commencement of... More
The appellantis being charged with robbery as defined in s126 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23]. His application for bail pending trial was refused on the basis that:
1. His alleged accomplices are still at large
2. The case against him is strong as he was in close proximity to the complainant. Therefore the issue of mistaken identity seems improbable even though this is a triable issue.
3. The evidence against him is overwhelming and this might induce him to abscond
4. Thus there are compelling reasons to deny him bail. More
This is an application for condonation of late filing of response to an application for the confirmation of a ruling in the matter between Stewart Majaya and Elizabeth Glaser Paediatric Aids Foundation for convenience referred to in this judgment as “the Foundation”. More
