This is an urgent chamber application for stay of execution of a judgment given in favour of the first respondent against the applicant in case number HC3126/11. After hearing submissions from counsel representing the applicant and the first respondent I gave an ex tempore judgment dismissing the application with costs. The background to the dispute between the parties is as follows: More
This is an appeal against the decision of the respondent’s disciplinary authority which found appellant guilty of misconduct and dismissed her from employment. More
On 20 January 2023 the applicant received a summons from Mlotshwa Solicitors, another law firm, showing that the 1st to the 8th respondents were claiming outstanding salaries against it in the sum of USD$20,000.00 at the High Court. This according to Jackson was the first time that the applicant became aware of the matter. Following receipt of the summons the applicant became aware that a Designated agent , the 9th respondent ,had made a determination against it on the 20th of October 2022. This means that in terms of the Rules an application for review against the determination by the... More
The dispute between the parties first appeared before me as a chamber application for a default judgment. The application was instituted by the first respondent who was then the applicant. The application was against the second respondent and the applicants who were the defendants in the main case.
The default judgment was premised on the second respondent not having entered appearance to defend. The application cites the second defendant and the applicants as respondents though the body of the application specifically states that “application for default judgment is hereby made against the first defendant only”. The second respondent is the... More
On 7 February 2001 the first applicant and the respondent entered into a lease agreement in terms of which the respondent leased to the first applicant certain premises known as the Boka Tobacco Auction Floors.
On 24 December 2010, in HC 9478/10, by the consent of all the parties herein, this court issued an order in terms of which the respondent herein was allowed reasonable access to the leased premises on the following conditions:
“1.1 The access shall be restricted to inspection of the premises and causing necessary repairs thereof.
1.2 The access shall be exercised upon reasonable written notice... More
The Applicants and the first respondent entered into a Joint Venture Agreement on 19 April 2019 for the purpose of conducting farming activities at Kwayedza Farm (crebilly), Zvimba District (the farm). The first Respondent is the holder of a 99 year lease in respect of the farm and Applicants were to be the financial and technical partners in the agreement. In furtherance of the joint venture agreement, Applicants brought a herd of cattle sheep onto the farm. The cattle are being kept on an open grazing basis and in excess of 200. More
This is an application for review in terms of Section 89(i)(di) and 92 EE(i) of the Labour Act [Cap 28:01] as amended by the Labour(Amendment) Act 5 of 2015 and as also read with rule 20(I) of the Labour Court rules, 2017.
IN LIMINE
The Applicant through his heads of argument took a point in limine that the Respondents were improperly before the court and were technically barred. It was Applicant contention that in terms of Rule 20(2) of the Labour Court Rules 2017, a Notice of Response to an application for review has to be filed within ten days... More
This is an application in terms of Rule 22. The respondent failed to file its notice of response within the prescribed time. The brief History of the matter is outlined below:
On 12 October 2015 the matter was referred before me in terms of rule 22 of the Labour Court rules. The respondent had been served with an application for review and an appeal. The appeal and the application for review had been duly served on the respondent on 9 June 2015. Certificates of service were filed as of record to prove such service. More
This an application for review of an arbitral award in terms of Article34(2) of the 1st schedule to the Arbitration Act. The Arbitrators ordered as follows;
“1. From 1January 2011 to 30June 2011 – the current wage position will prevail for that period.
2.From 1July 2011 to 31December 2011 – an increase on the present minimum wage of grade one of the Ferro –Alloy NEC of 20%.” More
The plaintiff sued the defendant for breach of contract. In its plea the defendant has raised an objection that the matter ought to be referred for arbitration as per agreement of the parties. That objection has been resisted by the plaintiff who also fights back that the objection was not raised procedurally. More
This is a court application brought in terms of s 167(2)(d) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (No. 20) Act 2013 (“the Constitution”). The section provides that only the Constitutional Court (“the Court”) may determine whether Parliament or the President has failed to fulfil a constitutional obligation. More
This is an application for bail pending appeal. Applicants appeared before a Regional Magistrate sitting in Bulawayo facing a charge of theft as defined in section 113 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act (Chapter 9:23). See Annexure A and B being the charge sheet and state outline respectively. Briefly the facts are that on the 13th of October 2022, the applicants were seen cutting and rolling armoured copper cables at Steam Loc National Railways of Zimbabwe. This occurred around 0300 hours. Applicants were arrested by NRZ security guards who found them in possession of five rolls of armoured... More
1st applicant who holds herself out as the Acting President of the political formation known as the Movement forDemocratic Change (T) , hereinafter referred to as MDC-T, brought this application under a Certificate of Urgency. This is an application for an interdict. More
This is an appeal against the whole judgment of the High Court sitting at Harare upholding the appellant’s conviction and sentence by the Regional Court on a charge of rape. More
The applicant instituted the application in casu seeking an order that:
“1. It be and is hereby declared that no special grant or mining rights may be awarded to the first respondent, or anyone, by the second or third respondents or anyone acting in their stead, in respect of (the) property known as Subdivision 1 of Highway Estate in Makonde District of Mashonaland West Province, measuring approximately 65.60 hectares. More
