At the conclusion of submissions in this application, I immediately pronounced that I was striking this matter off the roll because it was wholly unprocedural. I reserved my ruling on the first respondent’s application for costs de bonis propriis against the law firm representing the applicant, namely C Nhemwa & Associates. I indicated the detailed reasons for striking the matter off the roll would appear in my written judgment. More
The applicant seeks the joinder of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd respondents in proceedings pending before this court under HC 8780/19 (the main application). The application was made in terms of r 87(2)(b) of the High Court Rules, 1971 (the Rules). The relief sought is couched in the draft order as follows:
“IT IS ORDERED THAT:-
1. The Application for Joinder be and is hereby granted.
2. The 1st, 2nd and 3rd Respondents be and are hereby joined as 7th, 8th and 9th Respondents in Case No. HC. 8780/19.
3. That 1st, 2nd and 3rd Respondents each be given ten... More
This is an appeal against an arbitral award made in the following terms:
“1. The applicant (appellant herein) was not constructively dismissed as he voluntarily resigned.
2. The applicant’s claim is therefore dismissed for lack of merit.”
The issue raised by the appellant that should be determined by this court is whether there was constructive dismissal in this case.
According to the appellant the respondent bank made continued employment intolerable. More
The appellant was convicted of indecent assault as defined in section 67 (1) of the Criminal Law Codification and Reform Act Chapter 9.23.
The facts of the matter are that the appellant indecently assaulted the complainant then a 14 year girl by fondling her breasts and touching her thighs. The complainant was a Form 1 pupil at the material time and the appellant was her English teacher. The appellant was sentenced to 36 months imprisonment of which 12 months imprisonment was suspended for 5 years on the usual conditions and the remaining 24 months was suspended on condition the appellant... More
On the 12th April 2012 the Honourable C Kabasa made an arbitration award. In terms thereof he dismissed Appellant’s claim of unfair dismissal by Respondent. Appellant then appealed to this Court. Her grounds of appeal were as follows,
“The Arbitrator misdirected himself in one or all of the following points of law:
1. In failing to make a correct application of the law relating to prescription of disputes according to Section 94 of the Labour Act (Chapter 28:01) and
2. In failing to give a correct interpretation of section 14 of the Labour Act Chapter 28:01).” More
The above six matters raise the same issue. The matters came before me and other judges of this court as individual chamber applications for registration in terms of section 98 (14) of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01] of certain arbitral awards in favour of each applicant. For the purposes of arguing the legal point of practice and procedure arising, I set down all for hearing all the chamber applications in terms of rule 246 (1)(b) of the High Court Rules, 1972. For convenience, I combined the hearings of the chamber applications. I also received separately, submissions form Messrs Dlakama and... More
This is an application in terms of s 236(4) of the High Court Rules, 1971 for the dismissal of an application for setting aside a Will for want of prosecution. More
This is an application for leave to appeal against a decision of the Labour Court, handed down on 27 October 2014 dismissing with costs, an appeal to that court against a decision of the respondent dismissing the appellant from employment. Leave to appeal was denied by the Labour Court on the premise that the intended appeal had no prospects of success. More
This is an appeal against the refusal of bail by the court a quo.
The appellant appeared before the Magistrates Court facing one count of robbery as defined in s126 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act, Chapter 9:23 and one count of attempted murder. More
The respondent in casu argued that the application is improperly before the Court because there is no resolution filed by the applicant authorizing the deponent to the founding affidavit to file the affidavit on behalf of the applicant company. More
This is a chamber application for leave to appeal to the Constitutional Court, from a decision of the Supreme Court in terms of r 32(2) of the Constitutional Court Rules S.I. 61/2016. The rule provides that “a litigant who is aggrieved by the decision of a subordinate court on a constitutional matter can apply to the Constitutional Court for leave to appeal against such decision”. More
[1] This is an opposed chamber application for condonation of late noting of appeal and extension of time within which to note an appeal. The application is brought in terms of r 43 of the Supreme Court Rules 2018 pursuant to the applicant’s failure to file a proper notice of appeal within 15 days of the judgment intended to be appealed against in breach of r 37. More
The constitutional matter before the Constitutional Court (“the Court”) for determination is whether s 353 of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act [Chapter 9:07] (“the Act”) is constitutionally invalid. The section authorises the imposition of a sentence of moderate corporal punishment on a male person under the age of eighteen years who is convicted of any offence. The matter came to the Court by way of the procedure for confirmation of orders concerning the constitutional invalidity of any law or any conduct of the President or Parliament made by another court. More
The whole point of this review judgement is to once again stress the importance, in a contested criminal trial, of observing the peremptory provisions of section 200 of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act, [Chapter 9:07].
This section provides as follows: More
