This is an application for interim relief made in terms of section 92 E (3) of the Labour Act. It is sought that execution of the decision of the National Employment Council for the Welfare and Educational Institutions (NECWEI) Appeals Committee be stayed pending the determination of an application for condonation of late noting of review. More
This is an application for review brought in terms of s 4(1) of the Administrative Justice Act [Chapter 10:28] AJA. The applicant is challenging the second respondent ‘s decision to terminate the applicant’s right of occupation of Stand Number 8A Captain Tapfumanei, Mbare before conferring same to the first respondent’s now deceased husband, Peter Baipai. It is the applicant’s contention that the decision by the second respondent must be set aside on the basis that it was irregular, unlawful and procedurally unfair. The application is opposed by the second respondent only. First and third respondents did not file any opposing... More
This is an appeal from a judgment of the Magistrates Court (Civil), per Mrs Mazhande, which was handed down on 8 June 2021. We heard the appeal on 28 October 2021 and reserved judgment after hearing submissions from the parties. The background to the dispute which has culminated in this appeal are that, on 1 June 2020, the appellant and the respondent entered into a lease agreement in respect of premises known as B209 Odzi Apartments, Corner Glenara Road and Samora Machel Avenue, Harare (hereinafter referred to as “the property”). The said lease agreement, which appears on pp 24-27 of... More
The plaintiff is the owner of certain business premises known as Sportlight Butchery and Bottle Store situate at Juru Business Centre, Chikwaka District, Goromonzi. The plaintiff was represented at the trial by his brother one Onias Gatawa duly authorized thereto by power of attorney granted to him by the plaintiff. More
On 17 July 2018, default judgement was granted in favour of the respondent in case No. 1769/02. Applicant has made this application in terms of Order 9 Rule 63 of the court rules seeking rescission of that judgement. More
On 10 September 2008 at around 7.30 pm the plaintiff was driving an E 200 Kompressor Mercedes Benz 1998 model from Gweru to Harare. At the 49 km peg, just before reaching Norton he drove into the back of a trailer. The trailer was being towed by a tractor driven by the first defendant during the course and scope of his employment with the second defendant. Both the trailer and the tractor belonged to the second defendant. More
The applicant is a haulage company. At the time of hearing it operated a foreign currency account with Renaissance Merchant Bank Limited. In April 2007, the applicant applied, through its bank, to the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe to use its foreign currency to procure a motor vehicle, a Mercedes Benze ML 320. The application was granted and the foreign currency was released by Renaissance Merchant Bank Limited with the approval of the Reserve Bank. Thereafter, the applicant procured its vehicle and imported it into the country. The respondent refused to accept import duty in local currency. It seized the vehicle... More
Applicants 1 to 10 are one faction of a trade union. Respondents 2 to 6 are the other. The trade union is the first respondent. The seventh respondent is the undertaking or industry in which the trade union is established. It is the employer. It is cited as a nominal party. It did not file any papers, electing to abide by the decision of the court. More
This is appeal against the judgment of the Harare Magistrates Court delivered on 1 July 2010. The appellant appeals against the order granted by the magistrate declining to grant the upward variation of a maintenance order. More
On 28th April 2015 the appellant filed an appeal in this Court. On 13th May 2015 the respondent filed a Response. The grounds of appeal were written in long hand as follows:
“Unfair treatment, unfair allegations resulting in an unfair dismissal from unfounded allegations.”
The terse grounds of appeal provoked a robust response by the respondent thus;
“In LimineGeneral Overview
There is no appeal before the Honourable Court. The general statements presented in the notice of appeal are broad and far reaching and, crucially, do not satisfy the legal test for grounds of appeal at law. They do not show... More
The applicant approached the court seeking a declaratur that civil imprisonment by common law is unconstitutional. The applicant further sought that s 16 of the High Court Act [Chapter 7:06] hereafter referred to as the Act as well as Order 41 of the High Court Rules 1971 be declared unconstitutional. The respondents opposed the application. The issues that fell for determination are basically the constitutionality or otherwise of provisions which the applicant raised concern about. More
The appeal was referred tome for determination on the record in terms of Section 89 (2) (a) (i) of the Labour Act [Cap 28 : 01]. The matter was filed in July 2014 but has been lying idle due to failure on Appellant’s part to settle sheriff’s costs for services of Notice of Set-down. On the basis of the directive by the Senior Judge dated 3rd October, 2016 that all idle matters ready for set down be referred for determination on the record the above matter was referred to me. I proceed to determine the matter. More
Respondent was employed by the appellant as a barman. The allegations are that the respondent included a fake USD100.00 note in his daily takings which led to a disciplinary hearing. The disciplinary hearing recommended his dismissal. The matter was referred to conciliation and finally to arbitration. The Arbitrator found in favour of the respondent. More
This is an application for absolution from the instance.
The brief facts are that the plaintiff a holding company of Beta Coal brought proceedings for recovery of monies owed to Beta Coal, on an acknowledged of debt. The plaintiff alleged that it entered into an agreement with defendant whereby the defendant accepted being indebted to the plaintiff in the sum of $160 000-00. Despite demand the defendant had neglected to pay. More
The plaintiff issued summons against the defendant for the payment of US$160 000-00 together with interest at the prescribed rate from date of summons to date of payment in full. The claim is based on an acknowledgment of debt. The plaintiff also sought costs of suit. More
