This is an application for provisional sentence. The plaintiff issued summons for provisional sentence against the defendant for $352 191.82 together with interest at the rate of 26 per cent per annum from the 1st of April 2014 to date of full payment. Such claim is based on a notarial general covering bond, a deed of hypothecation over immovable property and a personal guarantee all being securities for the banking facilities extended to the first defendant. More
The applicant sought intervention as a negotiorium gestio in HC 8581/11, an action in which the respondent sued Patience Nyangove as the first defendant and Standard Newspaper as the second defendant. More
This is an appeal against the decision of the appeals officer where he upheld the guilty verdict and dismissal penalty meted on appellant following allegations of conduct inconsistent with conditions of his contract in violation of section 4(a) of the Model Code. More
The accused was convicted after contest of raping his friend’s 13 year old sister on 18 October 2008. He was allegedly caught red handed having sexual intercourse with her by the child’s stepfather.
The complainant had allegedly had previous sexual encounters with the accused on numerous occasions without making any report to anyone. This alleged offence only came to light because she was found in a compromising position with the accused by her stepfather in the house. More
The background facts which are common cause are as follows;
The Appellant was employed by the Respondent as its Distribution Supervisor. He was given leave of absence to attend a training session from the 18th to the 21st of January, 2011. On the 21st of January of 2011 the training ended earlier around 1100hours. After training the Appellant went to his department and advised his subordinates to plan for the weekend programme. During his absence his subordinates stole 608 cases of Mazoe Orange Crush valued at US$9 093, 89. The Appellant was suspended from employment. More
This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court upholding the special plea by the respondents that the High Court did not have jurisdiction to determine issues of employment and labour law. At the centre of the dispute between the parties, both in the court a quo and before this Court, is the question whether the High Court, which now enjoys original jurisdiction over all civil and criminal matters throughout Zimbabwe pursuant to s 171 of the 2013 Constitution, has jurisdiction to determine all matters including issues of labour and employment. More
This matter was set down as an appeal against the arbitrator’s decision where he ruled on the point in limineraised in the arbitral proceedings that the employees had pursued multiple legal proceedings hence the claim they had brought before the arbitrator could not be entertained by the arbitrator. More
On 16 December, 2015 the applicant moved the court to:
(i) evict the 1st – 21st respondents and all those who claimed occupation through them from Dorith More and Stanley [“the farms”];
(ii) interdict the respondents and those that claimed through them from entering the farms- and
(iii) order the 22nd respondent to assist the Sheriff in evicting the respondents and those who claimed through them from the farms More
I heard this matter on 18 May 2021, I delivered an ex tempore judgment in terms of which I granted the applicant’s prayer with costs.
On 19 October 2021, the High Court Registrar wrote advising me that my decision had been appealed. He requested reasons for the same. These are they:
The applicant is a legal entity. It is the owner and lawful occupier of two pieces of land (“the farm”) which are in the District of Hartley which is now known as Chegutu. The pieces or the farmcomprise(s): More
This is an application for leave to appeal against the decision of this court of 7 July 2021 in case HC 4469/20, judgment HH 352/21.Applicants filed two applications, HC 1230/19 and HC 3457/19, with this court which they did not persue until the respondent filed a chamber application for their dismissal for want of prosecution under case HC 4469/20. On 19 March 2021, the day of the hearing of the initial chamber application, applicants persuaded the court that they be given more time to set down their two matters.
The presiding judicial officer granted their request and by consent from... More
The application before me is an application for leave to execute pending appeal. The facts of the case have been covered in detail in the pleadings and what appears below is a brief summary of the relevant facts.
The applicant hereinapplied to this Honourable Court to have an arbitral award registered. This application was opposed by the respondent. The respondent opposed the application for two main reasons; the first was that there was an application for stay of execution of the arbitral award pending before the Labour Court at the time the applicant sought to have the arbitral award registered.... More
[3] The factual conspectus giving rise to this application is not in material dispute. It is that the applicant was engaged as the respondent’s Underground Manager Paterson Grade G4 between May and June 2018. On 1 March 2019, he was appointed as the respondent’s Statutory Manager and acting Operations Mining Manager. The employment relationship was seemingly marred by irreconcilable differences to the point that on 24 November 2023, the applicant applied to a Principal Labour Officer with the Ministry of Public Service, Labour and Social Services for conciliation. In his application, the applicant laid allegations of non-payment of salaries and... More
The Court is proceeding in terms of Section 89 (2)(a)(i) of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01] THE ACT which reads:
“In the exercise of its functions, the Labour Court may –
(a) On the case of an appeal –
(i) Conduct a hearing into the matter or decide it on the record; or
(ii) …………………………………” More
The first respondent issued summons against the appellant and second respondent, in the court a quo. The appellant and second respondent were the defendants whilst first respondent was the plaintiff. The order sought had the following terms: More
