The plaintiff issued summons against the defendant claiming payment of US$ 23 000.00 (Twenty three thousand dollars) as damages or replacement value of the plaintiff’s vehicle. The defendant in his plea to the claim denied liability on the basis that he never dealt with the plaintiff but with the plaintiff’s wife one Violet Temba. He said he received the said vehicle from the plaintiff’s wife who is the defendant’s sister. By arrangement with his sister he paid to ZIMRA duty for the said vehicle and his sister failed to refund him an amount of $5 000.00 that he had paid... More
On 1 November 2018 the applicant’s three motor vehicles, a Mercedes Benz AEK 1985, a Mazda T3500 ABG 8923 and a Vintage Dodge ACB 8557 were attached by the first respondent, the Sheriff and were due to be removed on 7 November 2018. This prompted the applicant to file the present urgent chamber application for stay of execution on the ground that the attachment which was done by the Sheriff is null and void because he has already paid all his dues to the second respondent, Maparahwe Properties (Pvt) Ltd and the third respondent, Norton Town Council. More
The applicant and one Phillip Chigumira, who is now deceased, were business partners with equal shareholding of 50% each in an entity called Maurizim Investments (Pvt) Ltd (hereinafter referred to as Maurizim or the company). They acquired an immovable property called Stand 10245 measuring 2383 square metres (the property). The property was registered in the name of the company. Following the demise of the late Phillip Chigumira in 2011, his estate was registered with the second respondent under DR 1265/11. The first respondent was appointed the Executor Dative. More
This an urgent chamber application for stay of execution of the judgment granted in case number HC 4457/19. The interim relief is being sought pending determination of an application for joinder, which the applicant proposes to file within five days from the date of the provisional order. On the return date the applicant seeks an order for the permanent stay of execution of the order referred to above. More
This is an appeal against an arbitral award issued at Chinhoyi on 6 October 2014. The Learned Arbitrator ordered Temperly Farm to reinstate all the respondents with no loss of salary and benefits with an alternative order for the payment of damages should reinstatement be no longer possible. More
The facts of this case are common cause. The applicant was employed by the respondent as a laboratory technician quality control analyst in Bulawayo. In July 2015, the respondent introduced an incentive scheme in terms of which employees were to be paid a monetary incentive twice a year, in July and December. The respondent made it clear in its scheme that the incentives were non-contractual and non-obligatory. The respondent intended to motivate its employees in the performance of their duties. One of the conditions of the incentive scheme was that it was not payable to employees with misconduct records or... More
On 19 April 2023, the applicant sought condonation for failure to file an application for leave to appeal within the prescribed period and for leave to appeal. The first part of the application is in terms of r 43 (3) of the Supreme Court Rules, 2018. The other part is made in terms of r 60 (2) as read with r 43 (7) of the said Supreme Court Rules and s 92F (3) of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01] (the Act). It is contested by his former employer, National Foods Limited (the first respondent). More
This is an application for leave to appeal from a judgment of the Labor Court. The court a quo found no merit in the application for leave to appeal and dismissed it, on the main that the draft notice of appeal did not raise questions of law. The applicant was dissatisfied with the judgment of the court a quo and filed an application for leave in terms of r 60 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2018. More
This is an application for condonation and extension of time within which to note a review application in terms of r 13 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2018 More
This is a court application filed in terms of r 449 of the High Court Rules, 1971 in which the applicant seeks an order rescinding the order granted by this court on 27 November 2019. In terms of the Supreme Court Rules, 2018 the High Court Rules apply whenever there is a lacuna in the Rules of this Court. The application is opposed by the respondent. More
This appeal, against the whole judgment of the High Court sitting at Harare (the court a quo) handed down on 19 October 2023, was initially launched only by the first appellant in his capacity as the executor testamentary of the estate of the late Grace Mandaza. The late Grace Mandaza was sued by the first respondent in the court a quo in her capacity as the executrix dative of the estate of her late husband Joel Mandaza as well as in her personal capacity. More
This is an appeal against the whole judgment of the High Court (the ‘court a quo’) handed down on 2 April 2024 under judgment number HH 139/24. The court a quo dismissed the appellant’s application for condonation of failure to file an application for the rescission of a default judgment within the permitted time. More
The bulkiness of this application gives the impression that the matter before me is complicated and involved yet it is a straight-forward application in which the applicant applies for relief as set out in the draft order as follows:
“IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1. The first respondent’s decision made on the 13th of October, 2021 in dismissing the application for a postponement and ordering the hearing to proceed in the absence of applicant’s legal practitioners be and is hereby set aside.
2. The proceedings in State v Tendai Laxton BitiCRB HreP 11362/20 pending first (sic) before first respondent be and... More
The applicants approached this Court seeking that its late filing and setting down of the applicant’s exception be condoned and that the applicants be given leave to set down their exception within 10 days from the date of this judgment. The respondent a self-actor opposed the application but is not in attendance despite service of the notice of set down at his chosen address. Nonetheless, the court has decided to determine the matter on merits and the applicants’ legal practitioner made submissions and urged the court to exercise its discretion and grant the order sought. More
