The applicant is a property owning company that leased certain premises to the respondent in terms of a written lease agreement that has been varied from time to time with the written consent of the parties. A dispute arose between the parties as to the payment of rentals for the leased premises resulting in the applicant canceling the lease agreement between the parties on 24 January 2007. At the time of the cancellation of the lease agreement, the applicant alleged that the respondent was in arrears with its rentals to the tune of $ 5 810 000-00. More
On 27th July 2012 the Honourable L.Chibvongodze made an arbitration award. In terms thereof she ordered Appellant to reinstate Respondent’s employment. Appellant then appealed to this Court against the award. The grounds of appeal were two-fold namely,
“1. The Arbitrator erred at law in determining a matter which she had no jurisdiction to determine upon.
2. The Arbitrator erred grossly both on the facts and at law in interfering with the penalty imposed by the Appellant, which penalty was an exercise of discretion.” More
At the hearing of this matter, appellant raised a point in limine, to the effect that the Trade Union representing the respondents cannot do so without showing proof of its authority to represent the respondents.
I reserved judgment on the point in limine, and directed that the parties file supplementary Heads of Argument covering that aspect i.e. the Trade Union’s locus standi in judicio. The parties duly filed their supplementary Heads of Argument. More
Applicant employer filed an application with this court which it styles “Application for leave to correct the record by reinstating missing information in Case No LC/H/298A/13”
Respondent employees are opposed to the grant of such application calling it a disguised application for leave to adduce further evidence on appeal. It is only this application which is addressed by this judgment. More
This is an appeal against the decision of the arbitrator who found that the respondent employees had a legitimate expectation of being re-engaged when their fixed term contracts effluxed by passage of time. The matter has taken almost a decade to be resolved which is surely regrettable and a travesty of justice in the court’s view. More
: On 16 January 2020 the applicant made an application for bail pending trial which I dismissed and I gave reasons for that dismissal, which reasons were explained to the applicant ex-tempo.
On 11 November 2020 Messrs Matsika Legal Practitioners wrote a letter to the deputy registrar requesting reasons why the application was dismissed. These are they.
On 23 August 2018 the applicant was arrested by the police on allegations of Murder. The state alleged that on 31 July 2018, the applicant was arrested by the police on allegations of murder. The state further alleged that on 31 July 2018... More
The respondent instituted proceedings against the applicant in case No. HC 1534/11 seeking payment of the sum of US$47 059,80 for household goods sold and delivered to the applicant on credit. The applicant duly entered appearance to defend the claim prompting the respondent herein to make an application for summary judgment in case No HC 2474/11 on the basis that the applicant had not a bona fide defence to the claim. More
The interesting facts of this case are these. On 12 May 2021 at approximately 1000 hours, the Applicant SUSAN MARY STOOKS, a British Citizen by birth, but who renounced it on 9 May 1961 to acquire Rhodesian and Nyasaland Citizenship by Registration, approached the office of the Department of the Registrar General on her own accord to make an enquiry on the requirements for making an application for the renewal of her passport which is due to expire in August of 2021. She was in peaceful and undisturbed possession of her Zimbabwean passport, her British passport recently issued to her... More
On 13 July 2023 Applicant filed a Court Application for Review in terms of Rule 62 of SI 202/2021. The Grounds of Review centered on the fourth Respondent’s decision to grant the consent to sell stand 14410/5 Kuwadzana Township Harare, a property belonging to the late Socrates Zimunhu’s Estates. In her Founding Affidavit, Applicant stated that she was customarily married to the deceased sometime in 1994. Three children were born out of the marriage. In 2003 she divorced the deceased in the Magistrates Court under case number MC 243/03. She was awarded 40% of the value of the matrimonial home,... More
The dispute before me started as an opposed application before MAWADZE J in 2014. On 8 May, 2014, after going through all the papers placed before him, MAWADZE J’s view was that the interests of justice would be better served if the matter was referred to trial for a proper ventilation of all the issues. He ordered that the court application shall stand as the summons and the notice of opposition as the appearance to defend. A declaration was to be filed within 10 days of the court order and thereafter the matter would proceed to trial in terms of... More
The applicant is Suscaden Investments (Private Limited a duly incorporated company in accordance with the laws of Zimbabwe. The first respondent is Parks and Wildlife Management Authority, a statutory body incorporated in terms of the Parks and Wildlife Act [Chapter 20:14] “Act”. Its functions are set out in s 4 of the Act. The Authority inter-alia controls, manages and maintains inter-alia national parks, sanctuaries, recreational parks and provides facilities for visitors. The second respondent is The Minister of Environment Climate Change, Tourism and Hospitality Industry. The Minister administers the Act. The Minister did not file any opposing papers in this... More
On 10 October 2022, the applicant filed this urgent chamber application in which it seeks interim relief that is set out in the draft provisional order as follows:
“TERMS OF FINAL ORDER SOUGHT:
That you show cause to the Honourable Court why a final order should not be made on the following terms:-
1. (a) That 1st and 2nd Respondents together with anybody acting for and on behalf of the
Respondents be and are hereby interdicted from interfering in any way, directly or indirectly with the Applicant’s occupation, business operations and rights based on the Deed of Settlement and Lease... More
