In this case the respondents were convicted, in the magistrate’s court on 19 March 2012, of conspiracy to commit public violence as defined in s 188 as read with s 36 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act, [Cap 9:23]. The Respondents were sentenced each to pay a fine of US$500, 00 or, in default of payment to undergo 10 months imprisonment. In addition they were each sentenced to 24 months imprisonment of which 12 months were suspended on conditions of good behaviour and the remaining 12 months were suspended on condition that each accused performs 420 hours of... More
This is an application for leave to appeal against the decision of the magistrates’ court to acquit the respondent at the close of the State case. More
I heard this application on 11 June, 2018. I delivered an ex-tempore judgment in favour of the applicant.
On 19 September, 2018 the registrar of this court wrote advising that the first respondent appealed my decision. He requested for my reasons for the same. More
The plaintiff, a trust formed in accordance with the laws, of Zimbabwe, approached the court for the relief of:
1. eviction of the defendant from a portion of Lot 5A Mayfield comprising of “former mushroom ward, physiotherapy room, bathroom and offices situate at the B.S Leon Retirement Village, 1 Monavale Road, Milton Part, Harare;
2. payment of arrear rentals by the defendant in the sum of $23 500-00 at the time of the claim;
3. holding over damages in the sum of $4000-00 per month from May 2015 to date of vacation;
4. interest on the above amounts at the... More
This matter was initially set down for hearing before me on 7 July 2011. After perusing pleadings filed by the parties to the dispute I required the first and second respondents to lodge with my clerk a copy of an environmental assessment impact report alluded to in the opposing affidavit which had been omitted from the record. Consequently the matter was postponed for hearing after the filing of the report.
By the time that date arrived the parties had filed further documents and I postponed the matter to 20 July 2011 to enable the court and the parties to the... More
The plaintiff is a Trust formed in terms of an Addendum to a consent order entered into by the defendant and his ex-wife, Colleen Beatrice Benatar. The Addendum was subsequently made an order of this court. More
This is an application for condonation of late filing of a notice of opposition in HC7577/10 wherein the respondents seek the nullification of their suspension from employment as well as their reinstatement to their posts without loss of salary or benefits.
The applicants were served with the court application in HC7577/10 on 27 October 2010. They had until 8 November 2010 to file their notice of opposition and opposing affidavits. On 8 November 2010 a notice of opposition and an opposing affidavit were filed. On 19 November 2010 an answering affidavit deposed to by the first respondent herein was filed. More
This is an appeal against the decision of the arbitrator. The facts are that the respondent was employed by appellant and is alleged to have resigned. Respondent alleged that he was owed arrear salaries and took his matter up with the Ministry of Labour. Conciliation failed and the matter was referred to arbitration. The arbitrator found in favour of respondent. Appellant has appealed to this Court being dissatisfied with the decision of the arbitrator. More
The applicant filed an urgent chamber application seeking an order of this court, staying the execution of an order granted by HLATSWAYO J on 24 July 2009, in HC 4327/08. More
This urgent chamber application was referred to me on 10 May 2010. On the same date after perusing the papers I endorsed on it that the matter was not urgent. On 11 May 2010 the applicant’s legal practitioners wrote to the Registrar seeking an opportunity to argue the urgency of the matter before the judge. Their letter was received by the Registrar on 12 May and brought to my attention on 13 May. I therefore directed that the matter be set down for 17 May at 10.00am. More
The municipality of the City of Harare is the lawful owner of certain piece of immovable property known as House No. 4 Hampshire Road, Eastlea, Harare. Sometime in September 1993 it entered into a written lease agreement with one Soul Kenneth Manyasha the defendant under case number 3174/08 and the plaintiff under case number HC 6675/08. More
1. This is a chamber application for reinstatement of the applicant’s appeal in terms of r 70 (2) of the Supreme Court Rules 2018 (the Rules). The application is pursuant to the Registrar’s order deeming the appeal abandoned and dismissed in terms of r 53 (1) of the Rules. The appeal was deemed abandoned and dismissed for want of filing heads of argument on time. The application is opposed. More
The appellant seeks the setting aside and substitution with a dismissal of the judgment of the High Court (the court a quo) handed down on 13 July 2020. The court a quo set aside the discharge order of the respondents from the army and reinstated them without loss of salary or benefits. More
On 12 February 2020, the High Court handed down judgment directing the appellant to refund to the respondent the sum of ZWL 545 058, 14 together with interest at the prescribed rate reckoned from September 2002. It also ordered the appellant to pay the respondent’s costs of suit. This appeal is against the whole of that judgment.
BACKGROUND
On 18 June 2002 the respondent, which is anincorporation registered in Zimbabwe, purchased 30 motor vehicles from Japan which were quickly shipped to Durban in South Africa on 29 July 2002. On 2 August 2002 the Minister of Finance published General Notice... More
The applicant is seeking a declaratory order in terms of s 14 of the High Court Act [Chapter 7:06]. The application was prompted by a dispute arising from an amendment to the Dadaya Mission Trust Deed and the appointment of the second to fifth respondents as trustees.
From the onset, Mr Chidyausiku took the preliminary point that the first respondent is barred on account of filing heads of argument beyond the prescribed period. He moved that judgment be granted on an unopposed basis. The first respondent’s heads of argument were filed on 28 August 2018 despite having been served with... More
