The plaintiff sued the first to fifth defendants seeking vacant possession of certain piece of immovable property known as stand number 381 Goodhope Township.
The first defendant claims occupation of the disputed property on the basis that he inherited it from his late father Lovemore Zhuwake. More
The plaintiff and first defendant are engaged in a vicious legal battle over the ownership of a certain piece of immovable property known as stand number 381 Goodhope Township. The plaintiff claims to have bought the property from one Robert Campbell Logan the heir to the estate of the late Johanna Francisca Logan. He has since obtained title. On the other hand the first defendant claims to have inherited the property in dispute from his late father one LovemoreZhuwake. More
1. This is a review application, brought in terms of section 27 of the High Court Act [Chapter 7:06], as read with rule 62 of the High Court Rules, 2021. Applicant seeks to challenge the decision of the 1st respondent made on the 19 October 2021.
2. Applicant seeks an order couched in the following terms:
i. The application for review be and hereby succeeds.
ii. The decision of the 1st respondent dated 19 October 2021, in respect of the dispute between applicant and 2nd respondent under Ref: MATSOUTH/2/619/91/21 be and is hereby set aside.
iii. The mining shafts and... More
This is a simple application that has been mystified by 1st and 2nd respondents’ legal practitioners. The application is for an interdict and an order suspending mining operations at the mining shafts under dispute between the 1strespondent and the applicant. Applicant filed this urgent chamber application seeking the following relief:
“Terms of the final order sought
1. The determination of the 2nd respondent which is dated 19 October 2021 in respect of the dispute between the applicant and 1st respondent be and is hereby suspended pending conclusive and definitive judgment of the court application for review under HC 1644/21.
2.... More
On the 16th April, 2012 Respondent’s complaint of non-payment of remuneration was referred to a Labour Officer for conciliation. The issue could not be resolved and was subsequently referred to compulsory arbitration. More
The appellant (Technoimpex JSC) is a company duly incorporated in terms of the laws of Bulgaria. It is the registered owner of an immovable property in Harare, Zimbabwe known as Lot 12 of Lot 15 Block C of Avondale, commonly refered to as Bath Mansions Flats at number 32 Bath Road, Avondale, Harare held under Deed of Transfer number 1657/89. In case number HC 6784/19 it applied for an interdict against the first to the third respondents who it alleged wanted to steal its property. The High Court granted the application. In arriving at the decision to grant the provisional... More
This is an urgent application. This application was lodged in this court on 21st January 2022. It was placed before me on the 24th January and I directed that it be served on the respondents together with a notice of set-down for the 27 January 2022. On the set down date Mr Robi counsel for the 1st respondent applied for a postponement of the matter. The application was not opposed and I postponed the matter to the 16th February 2022 for a hearing. The application is opposed by 1st respondent.The 2nd and 3rdrespondents neither filed opposing papers nor participated in... More
After a protracted trial the two appellants were convicted of theft as defined in s 113 (1) (a) and (b) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23]. The appellants were each sentenced to 30 months imprisonment of which 6 months were suspended for 5 years on the usual conditions of good behaviour. A further 12 months were suspended on condition the appellants restitute complainant leaving each of the appellants with an effective prison term of 12 months. More
Appellant was found guilty and dismissed from employment by Respondent’sDisciplinary Authority for having committed two acts of misconduct, namely –
“any act, conduct or omission inconsistent with fulfilment of the express, or implied conditions of his contract,
and
theft or fraud or commits a crime involving dishonesty.” More
The applicant approached the court seeking for a declaratory order to be declared a spouse of the late Linus ChirimbaShambare for purposes of Administration of Estates Act [Chapter6:01]. More
The plaintiff and the first defendant have competing claims to stand 2609 Ruwa Township of stand 856 Ruwa Township (“the property”). This action was launched to compel the second defendant to pass transfer of the property to the plaintiff and that the third defendant registers the transfer in favour of the plaintiff. More
This is a matter in which the respondent was employed by the appellant. In terms of the contract binding the two parties, during the probation period either party could give two weeks’ notice of termination of the contract. At the end of the probation period of three months, the appellant did not confirm the respondent as a permanent employee. In a letter dated 28 April 2011 the appellant gave the respondent two weeks’ notice to terminate the employment as required by the contract. This is also in keeping with the provisions of Section 12 (4) (d) of the Labour Act... More
The respondent is a former employee of the applicant. He was employed as a salesman/driver until October 2013 when he was dismissed from employment. The employment relationship was terminated after allegations of misconduct were levelled against the respondent. The dismissal was pursuant to disciplinary proceedings that were conducted in October 2013. The respondent sought to challenge that dismissal, and that decision led to a plethora of litigation proceedings in different forums. More
The Respondent was dismissed by the Appellant. The Respondent appealed internally. The domestic appeal process reversed the dismissal and substituted it with written warnings and an order for the Respondent’s reinstatement. The Appellant employer was aggrieved by the decision to reinstate the Respondent. Before it complied with the decision it appealed against that decision to this court. More
