The appellant in this case is facing a charge of contravening section 3(1) of the Gold Trade Act (Chapter 21:03). The state alleges that on the 15th of June 2020 and at 26 Adair Drive, Killarney, Bulawayo the applicant not being the holder of a licence or permit unlawfully and intentionally possessed 78 melted buttons of gold weighing 2 788,38g. The appellant denies the allegations. More
This is an application for the setting aside of the sale to and cession into the name of the second respondent of rights, title and interest in an immovable property known as No. 5 Gura Way, Marondera. The stand number of the property is described differently in the papers. In the Certificate of Authority to sell the property given by the third respondent, the Master of the High Court, it is described as Stand No. 2503 Chitepo Township Marondera also known as House No. 5 Gura Way Marondera. The valuation reports annexed to the applicant’s papers describe it as Stand... More
Applicant applied to this Court for condonation of a belated quest for review. Respondent opposed the application. He worked for the Respondent as a Bookkeeper. He was charged with misconduct. A hearing was held in his absence. A guilty verdict was returned. The punishment therefor was his dismissal from employment. The termination letter is dated the 8th April 2019. This application for condonation was filed on the 1st October 2019. The intervening period amounts to six (6) months. The Labour Court Rules S.I 150/17 in Rule 20(1) require that a review be brought within twenty-one days from the date proceedings... More
This is an application for the dismissal of a court application for want of prosecution in terms of Rule 236 (3) (b) of the High Court Rules 1971. It is not in dispute that the 1st and 2nd respondents (hereinafter referred to as the respondents) filed a court application under case number HC 3079/20 on 19 June 2020 against the applicant and others seeking a cancellation of certain title deeds. The applicant filed a notice of opposition on 1 July 2020 and served the respondents with the same on 2 July 2020. More
In the exercise of the power conferred upon it by its own governing act to grant declaratory orders, should this court set aside its own previous declaratory order and substitute in its place a completely different declaratur, if the effect of doing so would amount to ‘doing violence to the sense and substance of the original order? Put differently, is it a competent exercise of parallel jurisdiction to grant a declaratur whose effect would be to nullify another declaratur already issued by this court which is extant? A litigant who is aggrieved by the conferment of rights, title and interest... More
This is an application for rescission of a judgment issued in terms of Rule 19(3) (a) of this Court’s Rules SI 59/2006.
On 6th November 2013 Applicant noted an appeal against an arbitral award dated 22nd October 2013. On 13th November 2013 Respondent filed its Notice of Response. In terms of Rule 19(3) (a) of SI 59/2006 Applicant was supposed to file heads of arguments within fourteen days of receipt of the notice of response. This Applicant did not do. On 17th December 2013 Respondent reminded Applicant of the provisions of Rule 19(3) (a) of SI 59/2006. Applicant did not... More
The plaintiff issued summons claiming damages arising from a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 18 May 2007. The plaintiff’s claim is founded on allegations that the accident was solely due to the negligence of the 1st defendant in that:
(a) he attempted to overtake another vehicle in the face of the plaintiff’s vehicle;
(b) he drove at an excessive speed; and
(c) that he failed to take evasive action or act reasonably when an accident was imminent . More
On the 31st August 2018 the Designated agent issued a determination in which he dismissed the appellant’s claim of unlawful dismissal on the basis that the exercise of retrenchment embarked on by respondent was within the ambit of the law and therefore above board.
Aggrieved by this determination, appellant noted this appeal on the ground that;
the Designated agent erred and misdirected himself on a point of law in failing to hold that the appellant was unlawfully dismissed from employment by the respondent under the guise of a retrenchment which was not done in accordance with the law. More
This was an urgent chamber application. On 29 January 2019 I granted the provisional order sought, albeit with slight modifications. But on 14 March 2019 I rescinded that ordermero motu. In between I had come to realise that there had been a patent error. More
The background to this matter is as follows. On 24 April 2018 this matter was placed before me under a certificate of urgency. I gave directions relating to the hearing of the matter. Before the date of hearing counsel for 4th and 5th respondents indicated in writing that they will apply for a joinder. At the hearing Mr Muchadehama made a formal application as promised. The application was granted principally for the reason that the parties are involved in ongoing litigation in the two reference files cases both brought by the applicant. In HC 595/17 the applicant sought an order... More
This matter came to me via the urgent chamber book, seeking an interim order, that the first respondent be interdicted from carrying out any of the functions of a Judicial Manager as set out in s 306 of the Companies Act, and that the Master of the High Court assume custody of the assets of the second respondent. More
“IT IS ORDERED THAT
The first and second respondents be and are hereby declared personally liable to pay the applicant:
(a) The sum of Two Million, Seven Hundred and Fifteen Thousand United Sates Dollars (US$ 2 715 000,00).
(b) Interest on the sum of US$2 715 000.00 at a rate of 15% per annum from the 27th May 2013 to date of payment in full.
(c) Costs of suit on a legal practitioner client scale.” More
The respondent raised two preliminary issues in his heads of argument. However when the parties appeared before the court one of the preliminary point was abandoned.
The respondent submitted that the grounds of appeal did not raise questions of law as envisaged by section 98 (10) of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01] (“the Act”). Further to that it was submitted that the grounds of appeal challenge the factual findings by the arbitrator and it was neither alleged nor demonstrated that the findings of the arbitrator were grossly unreasonable. More
