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
The respondent is a university constituted as a body corporate in terms of the Chinhoyi University of Technology Act [Chapter 25:23] (hereinafter called the CUT Act). The appellant was employed by the respondent as a secretary in the Graduate Business School Department from April 2012 to October 2018. Allegations of misconduct were levelled against her for contravening s 4(a) of the Labour (National Employment Code of Conduct) Regulations SI 15/2006 (hereinafter called the National Code of Conduct). It was alleged that between 5 and 15 September 2018 she misplaced sensitive documents, being student dissertation assessment forms and the blue sheet... More
The relevant statutes and instruments in this matter are as follows,
1. The Labour Act Chapter 28:01 hereafter called the Act.
2. The ChinhoyiUnivesity of Technology Act Chapter 25:03 hereafter called the CUT Act.
3. The Labour (National Employment Code of Conduct) Regulations S.I. 15/06 hereafter called the National Code.
Applicant filed an application for review by this Court of her dismissal from employment by Respondent. The grounds for review were two-fold namely illegality and irrationality. I shall deal with the grounds adseriatim. More
Appellant was employed by the respondent as a driver/salesman. Following allegations of misconduct, appellant was brought before the Disciplinary Committee which found him guilty. A subsequent appeal to the Works Council confirmed the decision of the Disciplinary Committee. More
On 1 July 2015 the respondent sued the applicants for a sum of USD 60 000.00 being damages for malicious prosecution. He alleged that the applicants wrongfully and maliciously caused his arrest, detention and prosecution for contempt of court as a result of which he suffered damages in the sum of USD60 000.00. More
This application involves a long-standing dispute over the control of Glencairn Mine, Kadoma (the Mine). The 4th applicant and the 1st and 2nd respondents are shareholders in the 3rd applicant which owns the Mine at the centre of the dispute. More
The applicants seek an order declaring the respondent liable for contempt of court. It is proposed that the respondent be committed to prison for a period of thirty days wholly suspended on condition that the respondent and all those claiming through her shall within twenty four hours of this order vacate stand 1089 Tynwald, Harare. More
On 27 January 2025 at Harare, Designated Agent CT Dururu issued a determination which ordered appellant to pay respondent an amount of US$8,143.47 in respect of notice pay, leave pay and damages for loss of employment. Appellant then appealed to this Court in terms of Section 92D of the Labour Act Chapter 28:01. Respondent opposed the appeal. More
