: This application is a constitutional challenge by the applicant who seeks a declaration of the invalidity of ss 193(12) and (13) of the Customs and Excise Act [Chapter 23:02] (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).In the same vein the applicant seeks that pending the determination of the Constitutional issue the second respondent be interdicted from disposing the applicant’s fuel truck Registration Number AFJ0870 and a trailer Registration number AFJ 9490 More
This is an appeal against part of the judgment of the Special Court for Income Tax Appeals handed down on 28 September 2020, dismissing the appellant’s appeal against the decision of the respondent’s Commissioner in respect of various objections the appellant had raised against the Commissioner’s revised assessments of tax against it. More
The application placed before me is for rescission of a consent order granted by this court under reference LC/H/ORD/574/2019 on the 17th of July 2019. The application is opposed.
On the date of hearing the Respondent having taken several points in limine the following constitutes the court ruling on the four points in limine. The points in limine were as follows;
1. The application mounted by Lunga Attorneys is a legal nullity for want of procedure as Lunga Attorneys have not assumed agency as required by the rules of the court.
2. The Applicant’s Founding Affidavit does not specify proper... More
The facts presented by Applicant in this application for condonation of late noting of appeal are quite interesting. Applicant and Respondent appeared before the Arbitrator who granted the award on 30 July 2013. The Arbitrator ordered Respondent’s reinstatement and payment of damages in lieu of reinstatement. Respondent reported for duty but was subsequently locked out on 2 September 2013. More
This is an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court made in terms of section 92 F (2) of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01] ‘the act’ as read with Rule 36 of the Labour Court Rules, Statutory Instrument 59/06 ‘the rules’. This court dismissed the appeal filed by the applicants in this matter. More
1. The first respondent, his assignees and representatives be and are hereby permanently interdicted from disposing through a sale or any other way or attempting to dispose in or in any way encumbering or attempting to encumber the immovable property listed below pendingthe outcome of proceedings under case No HC 2517/22 where the applicant is claiming a share thereof;
a) Stand No lot 9 of 7A Chicago, Kwekwe
b) Stand No 7595 Section 4 Mbizo, Kwekwe
c) Stand No 6650, Newtown, Kwekwe
d) Stand No 6123 Ngwe Street Southview,
e) Stand No 7061 Chigwagwagwa Stret, Target Kopje, Masvingo
f) Stand... More
: The applicants approached this court seeking an order compelling the first respondent to issue an exemption certificate in favour of Mr Jeremy Gauntlett in terms of s 7 of the Legal Practitioners Act [Chapter 27:07] (hereinafter called “the Legal Practitioners Act”). The order sought is expressed in the following way: More
The year was 2016. Conditions were ripe, according to the Judicial Service Commission(the 1st respondent), for the appointment of four additional judges to the Supreme Court to meet the manpower demands of that bench. Acting therefore in terms of Section 180 of the Constitution, the 1st respondent flighted advertisements in the print media announcing the existence such vacancies and inviting nominations from the President (the 2nd Respondent) and members of the public with a view thereafter to conducting public interviews to fill those vacant positions. More
BeatusMandeya (Mandeya) was employed as a driver by respondent. It is alleged that on 6 April 2013 he was driving a Sakunda truck horse registration number ABG 5272 and Tanker registration number ABZ 9757. He loaded 39941 litres of petrol at Msasa and discharged 37 957 litres on the 26 April 2013 in Zambia. Mandeya realised a loss by meter of 1984 litres and 1704 after factoring loss in transit. More
The appellant was arraigned before the Provincial Magistrate at Mutare on a charge of fraud as defined in s136 of the Criminal Law Codification and Reform Act, [Cap 9:23]. The allegation against her was that “on 24 February 2010 at Spar Supermarket, Chikanga, Mutare, the appellant, intending to deceive Langton Machikiti or realising that there was real risk or possibility of deceiving Langton Machikiti and intending to cause Langton Machikiti to act upon the misrepresentation to his prejudice or realising that there was a real risk or possibility that Langton Machikiti might act upon the misrepresentation to his prejudice presented... More
This is an application for eviction. The applicant prays for an order in the following terms;
“1. That the respondent, its agents and anyone claiming rights through him are hereby
immediately and forthwith evicted from stand No 17024 of stand 16969, Harare
Township, situate in the district of Salisbury.
2. That the Deputy Sheriff is hereby authorised to evict the respondent and anyone
claiming rights through him from the said premises.
3. That the respondent pays costs on the Law Society Tariff.” More
In casu, Applicant is challenging this Court’s factual findings. The factual findings complained of are they so irrational, so outrageous in their defiance of logic or acceptable morale standards to warrant interference by the Appellate court? More
