This is an application for declaratory relief wherein applicant is seeking that:
1. Section 156(1)(a)(b)(c) and (e) as read with section 155 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23] (THE CODE);
2. Section 157(1) (a) and (b) of the CODE and
3. Section 3 as read with section 6 of the Dangerous Drugs Act [Chapter 15:02] (THE DDA) and section 4(a) and 6(1) of the Dangerous Drugs Regulations 1975 (Rhodesia Government Notice No. 1111 of 1975) as amended by Statutory Instrument 409 of 1999 Regulations No. 4 (THE REGULATIONS). More
Plaintiff claimed $47 700.00 together with interest at the prescribed rate from 7 April 2015 to date of payment plus costs of suit on a higher scale from the defendant from an alleged unlawful use of its trading name and goodwill. Plaintiff also alleged that defendant fraudulently used its certificate of registration. More
On 23 December 1995 Plaintiff and Defendant were married in terms of the then Marriage Act [Chapter 37], now the Marriages Act [Chapter 5:17]. The marriage was blessed with four children who are all majors. On 15 July 2010 Plaintiff issued out summons claiming a decree of divorce and ancillary relief. In his Declaration, Plaintiff stated that the marriage relationship between the parties has irretrievably broken down to the extent that there is no reasonable prospect of reconciliation. More
On 4 November 2004, the applicants brought the above application seeking an order that certain documents filed with the third respondent, relating to the shareholding structure of the fourth applicant be declared of no force and effect as having been forged. It was specifically alleged that the first respondent had forged these documents.
The first respondent, who although not denying that the information in the documents complained of was false, denied being the author of such. In his opposing affidavit, the first respondent avers that he invited the first to third applicant to join as directors of the fourth applicant... More
This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court (the court a quo) in which it dismissed the appellant’s appeal against conviction for fraud as defined in s 136 of the Criminal Law Codification and Reform Act [Chapter 9:23] (the Code) by the Magistrates Court. More
The appellant (hereinafter referred to as Chidemo) was charged with nine counts of contravening s 136 of the Criminal Law Codification and Reform Act [Chapter 9:23]. He was convicted on 12 December 2017, after contest,of two counts and acquitted of the remaining seven counts. He was sentenced to 6 years imprisonment of which 1 year was suspended on condition of future good behaviour. A further 2 years were suspended on condition he restituted the Zimbabwe Revenue Authority (ZIMRA) in the sum of USD450 538.61.On 29 December 2017 he noted an appeal against conviction under case number CA 820/2017. On 28... More
The parties in this matter were dealers in cotton. On 17 August 2011 they entered into a written agreement in terms of which the defendant, as plaintiff’s agent, would buy from the cotton farmers around the country seed cotton for delivery to the plaintiff’s ginnery or other ginneries chosen by the defendant and approved by the plaintiff. The seed cotton would be processed into lint and cotton seed. The plaintiff would provide an initial amount of US$120 000-00 in two phases which the defendant would utilise for the purchase of 205 tonnes of the seed cotton. The agreement would operate... More
The respondent was employed by the appellant as a Plant Manager in Mozambique. He was dismissed from employment following disciplinary proceedings for absenteeism from work. The matter was referred to an Arbitrator who ordered that the respondent be reinstated or payment of damages in lieu of reinstatement. More
The application before me is for confirmation of a final order following the granting of a provisional order which was as follows:
1. The first respondent be and is hereby interdicted from disposing of Stand 655 Borrowdale Brooke Township of Stand 137 Borrowdale Brooke measuring 4428 square metres with title currently registered under Deed of Transfer No. 6402/2003 pending the finalisation of this application. More
On the 27th May 2014 the plaintiff issued summons out of this court seeking a sharing of immovable and movable properties she alleged were acquired during the subsistence of an unregistered customary law union with the defendant. More
The appellant was employed as a Restaurant Supervisor by the respondent. She was dismissed from employment following disciplinary proceedings. Aggrieved by that outcome she appeals to this Court on the following grounds and I quote:
“1. The court a quo misdirected itself on the fact (sic) in holding that the Appellant was guilty of misconduct (sic) inconsistent with the contract of employment.
2. The court a quo erred at law by finding the Appellant guilty of a matter that had no evidence or proof. If the complainant was aggrieved should have raised a grievance (sic).
3. The court a quo... More
Applicant applied to this Court for reinstatement of the abandoned matter LCH 268/25. The application was made in terms of Rule 36 of the Labour Court Rules, 2017. Respondent opposed the application. More
This is an application for reinstatement of an application for condonation of late filing of heads of argument. It is opposed.
Background
On 14 October 2010 this same application was placed before the court. The parties to the matter are Tariro Takawira v (1) NEC for Schools Development Association and Committees’ Appeals Committee. 2. SDA Dudley Hall Primary School. More
At the onset of this appeal the appellant employee sought to amend his relief which he felt he had worked badly. He also sought to have the court impugn what he
styled the belatedly filed Heads of Argument by the respondent employer. It is only these two issues which are addressed by this judgment. More
The appellant appeals against both his conviction and sentence.
In count 1 the appellant was convicted of contravening section 67(1)(a)(i) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Cap 9:23] (the Criminal Code) which relates to indecent assault. He was sentenced to a fine of $150 or 3 months imprisonment wholly suspended for 5 years on the usual conditions of good behaviour. In count 2 the appellant was convicted of rape as defined in 65(1) of the Criminal Code [Cap 9:23] and sentenced to 16 years imprisonment of which 2 years imprisonment were suspended for 5 years again on the... More
