The appellants are being charged with unlawful dealing in dangerous drugs as defined in s156(1)(c)of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23]. Their application for bail pending trial was refused by the Magistrates Court on the basis of the strength of the state case and the consequent likelihood to abscond given the likely sentence that may ensue. More
The Plaintiff, in his capacity as the Executor Testamentary of the Estate of the late Richard Alwin Matthews issued Summons out of this court against the Defendant claiming payment of a sum of US$16 149-42 being a loan advanced by the now deceased during his lifetime to the Defendant, plus interest thereon at the prescribed rate from the date of service of summons to date of the full and final payment plus costs of suit on a legal practitioner and client scale. More
On 28 February 2014 this Court dismissed Applicant’s application for interim relief filed in terms of section 92E (3) of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01]. Applicant seeks to approach the Supreme Court. This is therefore an application in terms of section 92 (F) (1) of the Act. The basis of the appeal is that the Court erred in finding:
(a) that the appeal does not raise legal issues/points of law.
(b) that the arbitrator’ s findings would be unassailable on appeal; and
(c) that the applicant will not suffer irreparable harm if the award is executed. More
This is an application for stay of execution of an arbitral award pending the determination of an appeal lodged with this Court. Respondent was employed by Applicant as its Managing Director. Applicant alleges that Respondent tendered a verbal resignation and left employment and another Managing Director was engaged in his stead. Applicant states that it was surprised when Respondent instituted proceedings alleging unfair dismissal. The matter was subsequently referred to the Arbitrator who ruled in favour of Respondent. Applicant, dissatisfied with the decision of the Arbitrator, has since appealed. Pending the decision of the Court in that appeal, Applicant has... More
The applicant operates a farming enterprise trading under the style of Buckingham Farm, North road, Marondera.
The first and second respondents are trade unions in the agricultural industry whereas the third to fourth respondents are their respective office bearers. The fifth to ninth respondents are its employees and former members of the workers’ committee.
The parties are embroiled in wage disputes concerning the classification of their enterprise. The applicant accuses the respondents of inciting its employees to engage in unlawful collective job action. In a bid to protect its business operations it has now applied for a provisional order interdicting... More
The applicants coined their application in the heading as “Court Application for condonation of late noting of an application for rescission and rescission of a default judgment in terms of r 29 of the High Court Rules, 2021.” In para 13 of the founding affidavit, the deponent who is the first applicant averred that the application was for “condonation for late noting of an application for default judgement, upliftment of a bar for failure to file heads of argument and an application for rescission of a default judgement in terms of r 29(1)(a) of the High Court Rules 2021.” Rule... More
This is an urgent chamber application in which the Applicants seek an interdict restraining the Respondents from evicting them and twenty-eight other farmers from Lion Kopje Farm in the Mashonaland West province. The matter was initially set down for argument on 20 August 2012 but was postponed to 28 August 2012 to enable the Applicants’ legal practitioner to respond to the opposing affidavit which had been filed on the same date. It was also hoped that during the postponement the parties would explore the prospects of a settlement. On 28 August the matter was again postponed to 3 September as... More
The facts of this matter being common cause the counsels agreed to proceed by way of a special case. Consequently, they filed a statement of agreed facts and heads of argument. More
The two cases were heard together because they raised the same constitutional questions for determination. The cases are about the constitutionality of the provisions of the Broadcasting Services Act [Cap. 12:06] (“the Act”) on funding for the provision of public broadcasting services. More
The appellant employer appealed against the decision of the National Employment Council for the Welfare and Educational Institutions Appeals Committee. The NEC had set aside the respondent employee’s dismissal and reinstated him with full pay and benefits to the appellant employer’s employ. It is this appeal which is the subject of this judgment.
The background to the matter is that the employee who was in the appellant’s employ as a hostel aide was brought before the appellant’s disciplinary committee to answer charges of failing to obey lawful instructions and theft of students money in Kapuya hostel. It was said that... More
The appellant was employed by the respondent as an Assistant Branch Manager at its Mvurwi Branch. Following some discrepancies in the handling of a customer’s order the appellant was arrested. The appellant was subsequently brought before a Disciplinary Committee which recommended his dismissal. An appeal to the Appeals Committee did not yield the desired results and the appellant approached this Court for relief. More
The facts that gave rise to this case arose in the financial tumultuous period of August 2008 when hyper-inflation wrecked the Zimbabwean economy. The plaintiff company issued summons out of this court on 24 July 2009 seeking specific performance and in the alternative contractual damages for breach of contract in the sum of US$4 000.00. The action was contested by the defendant company. More
I have before me two applications for rescission of default judgments. At the conclusion of the hearing of this matter the parties requested for a consolidation of cases HC 1342/10 and HC 1343/10. This was so because the cases were anchored on the same subject matter and the relief sought was the same. I granted the application for consolidation. In both applications the applicant seeks the setting aside of default judgments.
In case No. HC 1342/10 the applicant seeks the following relief (as amended):
“IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1. The judgment granted to the first respondent in default in case... More
This is an application for condonation of late noting of an appeal against the decision of the Respondent to dismiss the applicant from employment More
Applicants seek a declaratur and consequential relief in the following effective terms; -
2. “It is declared that the 1st Respondent is required by s 93 (5a) of the Labour Act [ Chapter 28:01] to apply for the confirmation of the draft ruling she made on 7th February 2019.
3. Consequently, the 1st Respondent be and is hereby ordered to do all things necessary in order that she applies for confirmation of the draft ruling she made in a matter between the Applicants and the 3rd Respondent and dated 7 February 2019 in accordance with s 93 (5a) of the... More
