By judgment delivered on 5 October 2022, the High Court [“the court a quo”], dismissed the appellant’s court application made in terms of s 27(1) (c) of the High Court Act [Chapter 7:06] [“the High Court Act”] as read with r 62 of the High Court Rules, 2021, for the review of disciplinary proceedings conducted by the respondents. This appeal is against that judgment. More
The appellants are the guardians of the minor children R. S. W. and C. R. H. M. respectively. In this judgment R. S. W. and C. R. H. M. are jointly referred to as “the children”. Pitted against the appellants are the third respondent, a trust school registered as a non-governmental school in terms of the Education Act [Chapter 25:04] [the “Education Act”], the first respondent who is the headmistress of the school and the second respondent who is the deputy headmaster. The fourth and fifth respondents are the trustees for the time being for the St. Christophers School Trust... More
The two cases were consolidated per request by counsels as the decision in one case affects the other. The parties are the same. In the first case the applicant is applying for registration of an arbitral award while the second matter is an application for setting aside of the same arbitral award handed by the Honourabe Arbitrator Justice NOVEMBER TAFUMA MTSHIYA (Retired judge) on the first of March 2017 in favour of applicant in HC 9484/17. More
The applicant received, by way of donation, 51% of the second respondent’s shares in 2011 through the shareholders agreement. This transaction shall be hereinafter called “the 2011 agreement” or the “shareholders agreement”. In 2016, Mr Mutanda sold his shares for the companies to the Government of Zimbabwe. According to the third respondent, the transaction saw the Government of Zimbabwe becoming the major shareholder in the second respondent. However, the applicant is disputing this. In 2020, the third respondent appointed board members for the second respondent. The applicant disputed this and initiated the arbitration proceedings through the letter dated 10 November... More
These urgent chamber applications were filed under case numbers HC 1412/19 and HC 1418/19 respectively. On perusing the papers it became evident that these applications related to the same parties. The relief sought in both applications is substantially similar and relates to disputed mining claims adjacent to each other. I directed that these applications be considered and determined at the same time. Before hearing brief oral submissions from counsel, I enquired whether there would be any prejudice to the parties if these matters were consolidated. Legal counsel for the parties confirmed that it was indeed appropriate to hear these matters... More
[1] This is an appeal against the judgment of the Labour Court confirming with an amendment a ruling by a labour officer that the appellant was guilty of an unfair labour practice and that the appellant pays to each of the respondents arrear compensation due to them for the period March 2011 to September 2015.The appellant seeks an order setting aside the confirmation and, in its place, another order dismissing the application for confirmation with no order as to costs. More
MAKARAU JA: This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court sitting at Harare, handed down on12 December 2016. In the judgment, the court a quo found the first three appellants guilty of murder and the fourth appellant guilty as an accessory after the fact, of public violence. The first three appellants were sentenced each to 20 years imprisonment. The fourth appellant was sentenced to a fine of $500-00 or in default, threemonths’ imprisonment with a furtherthree years imprisonment suspended on conditions. More
The two applications were consolidated as they involved the
same parties and the same subject matter. For easy of reference Vimbayi Charity Rundofa shall herein after be referred to as applicant and Luckie Magorimbo as the respondent. The applicant, Vimbayi Charity Rundofa and the first respondent, Luckie Magorimbo, were married in terms of the Marriages Act [Cap 5: 11]. In HC 4418/05 the applicant sued respondent for a decree of divorce and other ancillary relief. The applicant was represented by her present legal practitioners whilst respondent was a self –actor. More
This matter was filed as an appeal against the whole judgment of the Supreme Court dated 18 May 2015. The appellants submit that the appeal is noted in terms of s 167 (1)(a) and (c) as read with s 167 (5)(b) as further read with s 169 (1) of the Constitution. More
The above two (2) matters involving the same parties arise from the same facts. They were set down for hearing on the same day before me. On the date of hearing the parties agreed to argue the 1st case only as its determination would necessarily dispose of the second application. The parties therefore as per their agreement argued the application under cover of case number HC 823/19. It is an application in terms of Order 9 Rule 63 of the High Court Rules 1971. It seeks an order setting aside a default judgment of this court granted in case number... More
This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court dismissing an application by the appellants for a declaratory order and consequential relief pertaining to various fundamental rights, in particular, the right of children to shelter. The application was dismissed with no order as to costs. More
I heard these three applications together. The first two applications seek similar relief. The applicant in the third application seeks to be joined as fourth responded in the first application. More
This judgment involves two consolidated appeals from the High Court (the court a quo) being case numbers SC 258/20 and SC 285/20. The court issued a consolidation order dated 29 March 2021 by consent of the parties. Both appeals are based on the same record of proceedings and issues in the court a quo under Case No. HC 6503/19. It was therefore convenient to consolidate the two appeals because the matter was determined by the same judge a quo on the same facts and issues. The two appeals arise from the same judgement. Each appellant lodged its own appeal against... More
(3) The applicants noted an appeal to this Court against the decision of the High Court in HC 1348/21. The parties thereafter appeared before the Registrar in terms of r 55 (2), for the determination of the amount the applicants had to pay as security for the respondents’ costs. The Registrar determined the amount the applicants had to pay as the respondents’ security of costs and the period within which it was to be paid. More
MAKONI JA: This is an appeal against the whole judgment of the High Court declining to grant, each of the appellants, declaratory relief that the respondent’s unilateral debit of their bank accounts held with it (the respondent) was unlawful. More
