On 29 May 2011 members of the Movement for Democratic Party (MDC) convened a gathering at Glenview One Shopping Centre. The gathering later matched to Glenview 4 Shopping Centre at around mid-day where the group was peacefully dispersed by the police. Despite having been dispersed by the police the group is alleged to have relocated to Glenview 3 Shopping Centre where the group of youths again gathered at Munyarari Night Club. They were allegedly ferried to that venue by Norman Marega Chikura using a Mazda B1800 motor vehicle. More
The 3 applicants were convicted of murder with actual intent and sentenced to the minimum mandatory sentence of 20 years imprisonment for the murder of a police officer inspector Petros Mutedza who was on duty at Glenview 3 Shopping Centre on 29 May 2011. The minimum mandatory sentence was imposed in terms of s 47 of the Criminal Law codification and Reform Act [Chapter 9:23] as amended. More
This is an appeal against the whole judgment of the Labour Court handed down on 21 June 2019 in which it partially confirmed a draft ruling of a Labour Officer. The Labour Court remitted the matter to the Labour Officer for a determination of the issue of reinstatement, alternatively damages in lieu thereof and their quantification. More
This is an application for leave to appeal against a decision of this court handed down on 26 July 2019.
The application is in terms of section 92F of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01] (the Act) which requires that an application for leave to appeal against a decision of the Labour Court on a question of law shall lie to the Supreme court and a party seeking to
appeal from any decision of the Labour Court shall seek, from a Judge who made the decision, leave to appeal the decision. More
This is an application for leave to appeal a decision of this court to the Supreme Court. The decision being sought to be appealed against was handed down on 26 July 2019.
When the application for leave to appeal was heard in court, the 2nd respondent raised 3 points in limine. The 2nd respondent argued that the application was fatally defective due to its failure to comply with the law and practice and must be struck off the Roll. More
The plaintiff issued summons, out of this court, claiming payment of storage charges for the period April 2008 to June 2009 in respect of 12 kitchens in the sum of USD 18 0000-00, interest at the rate applicable in the United States of America from date of summons to date of settlement. It also claimed storage charges from 1 July 2009 until the date of completion of the contract calculated at the rate of USD 100-00 per month per kitchen The plaintiff also claims interest on that amount from 1 July 2009m at the sane rate as above, to date... More
: The plaintiff and defendant were joined in holy matrimony on 4 January 2000 in terms of the Marriages Act, [Cap 5:11].
Both parties are domiciled in Zimbabwe.
Their marriage was blessed with two children. The first child was born on 3 October 1993 and the second child was born on 11 May 1998. The parties had initially married under customary law in 1992.
After a period of about 15 years living together the plaintiff sued for divorce alleging that the marriage had irretrievably broken down in that:-
• The plaintiff and defendant have not lived as husband and wife... More
This is an urgent chamber application for an order suspending the procurement process instituted by the first respondent under reference number ZPCR33-2022. The tender was advertised by the Zimbabwe Manpower Development Fund (ZIMDEF), which falls under the first respondent on 9 September 2022. The relevant tender documents are marked Annexure “TC2”, which appears on pages 16-36 of the record. On the return date, the applicant seeks nullification and cancellation of the tender process. This application comes soon after the determination of HC 1727/22, which was an application for review and setting aside of the decision of ZIMDEF awarding a tender... More
I have before mean application filed by the applicant on 15 March 2022for review in terms of section 4 of the Administrative Justice Act [Chapter 10:28] (hereinafter referred to as “the AJA”), and for setting aside the decision of the 2nd respondent made on 22 February 2022. In addition, the applicant seeks the setting aside of the decision of the 1st respondent given on 9 December 2022, which awarded a tender to provide SAP software services to the 3rdrespondent. Dissatisfied with this, the applicant sought a determination of the matter by the Review Panel in terms of section 74 of... More
This matter was determined on the basis of the record as agreed to by the parties’ respective legal practitioners.
This is an application for condonation of late noting of appeal. In order for an application of this nature to succeed, the following considerations must be made.
(a) Whether the extent of the delay was inordinate regard being had to the circumstances of the case
(b) Whether a reasonable explanation for the delay was proffered
(c) Whether there are prospects of success should the matter be heard on the merits. More
The applicant filed an urgent chamber application seeking a provisional order which in effect sought execution of a specific clause from an earlier provisional order granted to it. This was in light of an appeal of that order by the first respondent to the Supreme Court despite not having opposed the provisional order when it was sought. More
This is an appeal against the whole judgment of the High Court (the court a quo) sitting at Harare dated 7 July 2021 upholding the respondent’s point in limine to the effect that the appellant’s cause of action had prescribed thereby dismissing with costs the appellant’s claim. More
On 24 June 2021, I reserved judgment in this matter to consider the issue of prescription that had been raised by the respondent. This was after the court had dismissed the applicant’s point in limine that the opposing affidavit to the respondent’s notice of opposition had not been properly commissioned. It is trite that a court before proceeding into the merits must deal with a point in limine. See Gwaradzimba N.O v CJ Petron & Co (pty) Ltd, 2016(1) ZLR 28 (S). More
The respondent was charged with misconduct in terms of what is styled, in the Charge Sheet, as the Marathon Group of Companies Code of Conduct. He is alleged to have contravened section 12 thereof, receiving or attempting to receive a bribe. More
