In this application Tregers Industries (“the applicant”) seeks a refund of the sum of $2,183,861,227-71 paid by its bankers to the Zimbabwe Revenue Authority (“the respondent”) at the instance and instructions of the respondent. The application is opposed. More
The applicant seeks the following relief-
“TERMS OF FINAL ORDER SOUGHT
That you show cause to the Honourable Court why a final order should not be made in the following terms-
1. The interim relief be and is hereby confirmed.
2. The execution of a garnishee of accounts during contestation of tax liability be and is hereby declared unlawful.
3. Section 69 of the Income Tax Act [Chapter 23:06] be and is hereby declared unconstitutional and struck down.
4. That the respondent shall pay the costs of this suit on a higher scale of legal practitioner and client only if... More
This is an urgent application for stay of execution of a judgment given in Case No. HC 12328/12. The judgment registered for the purposes of enforcement an arbitral award rendered in terms of section 98 of the Labour Act[Cap 28:01] in favour of the first respondent and against the applicant. The award was submitted for registration in terms of section 98(14) of that Act. The salient facts which culminated in the filing of the instant urgent chamber applicationmay be summarised as follows: More
The applicant seeks a spoliation order in the form of a provisional order couched as follows:
“TERMS OF THE FINAL ORDER SOUGHT
That you show cause to this Honourable Court why a final order should not be made in the following terms.
(a) The forcible ejectment from Wolverhampton Farm of the applicant by the first to third respondents and all those acting in concert with them is unlawful.
(b) The cutting of the applicant’s gum plantation and sale of the timber by the first respondent and those acting through him is unlawful.
(c) The fourth respondent shall do all that... More
The applicant approached this court seeking the following order:
“1. It is be and is hereby declared that, barring, ejectment and or interference of the Applicant’s attendance in the pre-budget consultative meetings and National Assembly on account of Applicant’s wearing of a colourful Rastafari jacket constitutes a violation of his right to freedom of conscience and religion as set out under Section 60 of the Constitution.
2. it is be and is hereby declared that Section 76(1)(a) as read with section 76(5) of the National Assembly Standing Rules and Orders permits the Applicant to wear his Rastafari colourful jacket in... More
Appellant was convicted of one count of indecent assault as defined in s 67 of the Criminal Law Codification and Reform Act, [Chapter 9:23] and another of rape as defined in s 65 of the same Act. He was sentenced to one year in respect of the indecent assault charge and seventeen years in respect of the rape charge. Of the 17 years imprisonment 4 years was suspended for five years on the usual conditions of future good behavior. The one year in respect of the indecent assault charge was ordered to run concurrently with the sentence in respect of... More
On 8 December 2010 at around 1700 hours and in Avonlea Drive, the plaintiff was approached by the defendant who was in company of other officers of the Criminal Investigation Department. The defendant ordered the plaintiff to disembark from the motor vehicle where he was sitting. He ordered the plaintiff to lie on the ground on his back.
The defendant accused the plaintiff of having stolen the motor vehicle he was in. The plaintiff protested his innocence. The defendant who was standing directly above the plaintiff, fired several shots aimed at the plaintiff’s legs. He proceeded to handcuff the complainantand... More
Applicant is the son of Tapson Ndlovu (Tapson) and Maria Ndlpovu (nee Tapera). Maria Ndlovu obtained a decree of divorce and ancillary relief against Tapson Ndlovu by order of this court in HC 788/17. This order was ganted on the 27th of July 2017 and per clause 4(1), the names of Trvor Ndlovu and Talent Ndlovu.
Meanwhile and unknown to applicant, 1st to 31st respondents who are members of a burial society obtained judgment against Tapson on the 11th of May 2017. This judgment was obtained on default of appearance of Tapson. The order directed Tapson to pay the sum... More
This is chamber application by the applicants seeking the dismissal of the court application under case No. HC 8289/16 filed by the respondent against the applicants. The chamber application is brought in terms of r 236 (4) (b) of the Rules of the High Court which reads;
“(4) Where the applicant has filed an answering affidavit in response to the respondent’s opposing affidavit but has not, within a month thereafter, set the matter down for hearing, the respondent, on notice to the applicant, may either—
(a) set the matter down for hearing in terms of r 223; or
(b) make... More
The applicants filed an Urgent Chamber Application on 26th September, 2019. The first to seventh respondents filed opposing papers on the date of the hearing The 8th to 14th respondents did not file any papers and their position is that they do not oppose the application, if the terms thereof are broadened to encapsulate their interests. Mr K. Shamuyariraa trade unionist representing the 15th respondent is opposed to the application. He also did not file opposing papers. More
The parties in this application are embroiled in a bitter dispute over the implications of their failure to specifically include Value added tax (abbreviated herein as “VAT”) matters in agreements for the milling of sugarcane. More
The applicants’ legal practitioners wrote a follow up letter dated 5 December 2016 enquiring on the judgment in this application which was argued before me on 8 November 2016. More
The facts in this matter are common cause. The appellant instituted proceedings in the magistrate court sitting at Chiredzi for the eviction of the respondents and all those claiming occupation through them from leased premises situated at Lot 11 A and Lot 12 A of Triangle Ranch Triangle Township, Triangle.
The first respondent is a company duly registered in terms of the laws of Zimbabwe. It is presently under Judicial Management. The 2nd to 32nd respondents are either farmer or current employees of the 1st respondent who occupy separate dwellings situated on the leased premises described above and are in... More
This is an application for leave to appeal a judgment of this Court, judgment number LC/H/746/13, to the Supreme Court. The Court in that judgment remitted the matter back to the applicant and ordered the applicant in the present application to record mitigation before approaching this Court. The order was made because the appeal was not properly before the Court. An adjudicating authority is enjoined by section 12 A (4) of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01] to consider mitigation before pronouncing a penalty especially where dismissal is a possibility. In that regard therefore it would have been inappropriate for the... More
