The applicant, a self-actor, applies for suspension of sale in execution of his house which is situated in the District of Bulawayo. The house, Stand number 370, Nketa 6 Township of Lot 400A, Umganwini, (“the property”), is 375 square meters in extent. It is held under Deed of Transfer number 114/2018. More
This is a chamberapplication made in terms of s 92F (3) of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01] (the Labour Act) “as read with r 60 (2) and r 61”of the Supreme Court Rules, 2018’ (the Rules). The applicant seeks condonation and extension of time within which to seek leave to appeal against the whole decision of the Labour Court. More
This is an application for leave for direct access to the Constitutional Court filed in terms of s 167 (5) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe, 2013 as read with r 21 (2) of the Constitutional Court Rules, 2016. The Supreme Court allowed an appeal by the respondent against a judgment issued in favour of the applicant by the Labour Court. If granted leave, the applicant intends to bring an application in the main alleging that the Supreme Court had acted unlawfully in setting down the appeal in the manner it did and thus violated the Constitution. More
This application is a two in one. It is an opposed application for the review of taxation of a bill of costs by the second respondent made in terms of r 56 (2) of the Supreme Court Rules, 2018 (“the Rules”). In opposing the application, the first respondent also filed a counter-application seeking a review of the same taxation and a removal of certain items of the bill allowed by the second respondent. More
This mater came before me as an urgent chamber application. The applicant seeks to interdict the respondents from disposing of an immovable property at the centre of this dispute. The property is 64 Daniel Street Mbare, Harare (the property). The four applicants and second respondent are all grandchildren of the late Thamary Motokari (deceased) whose estate was registered under DR 1071/19 More
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
