The following facts are common cause:
1.
Appellant worked for Respondent as a Property Manager.
2.
At the material times she was responsible for the Eastgate complex in Harare.
3.
The complex contained office space, a food court and retail business.
4.
Respondent leased space at the food court to a company called Opticare.
5.
Opticare then set up and ran a business called Captain’s Grill at the food court.
6.
Appellant’s husband Mr Allan Vutuzah, wasconnected to Opticare.
7.
The connexion led in due course to charges of misconduct being laid against Appellant by Respondent. More
This matter has had a long and winding history before this court. There have been a multiplicity of cases that have been filed before this court which all related to the immoveable property in question since 2001 which have all contributed to the delay in the finalization of these cases. The matter was further delayed by the death of the second respondent as it became necessary for his wife to be appointed executor of his estate and for her to be substituted in his place. The fourth and fifth respondents who were not party to the proceedings in case number... More
The plaintiff in her capacity as the Executrix Dative in the Estate of the late Nayison Mashavave DR 419/14 who died on the 24th February 2009 at Harare issued summons against the defendants claiming for orders declaring that Stand 8519 Glen View 8, Harare, belongs to the estate of the late Nayison Mashavave, that Stand 8519 Glen View 8 Harare be removed from the Distribution Account of the Estate of the late Richard Garikayi Chakabva, that within seven (7) days of service of this order, the defendants sign all necessary documents to transfer the Stand 8519 Glen View 8 Harare... More
At the conclusion of the oral submissions the court dismissed the appeal stating that there was no merit. Appellants’ legal counsel has requested for written reasons therefor. The following are the reasons.
Appellants were employed by respondent in various capacities at its Marondera Offices. It is alleged that appellants were assigned duties to assist in the distribution of agricultural inputs, namely fertiliser, to farmers in the area. It is alleged that the appellants received bags of fertiliser which they were not entitled to but should have been distributed to farmers who did not attend on the particular date of the... More
This appeal is against part of the judgment of the High Court upholding a plea of prescription. After perusing the documents filed of record in this matter, it was the unanimous view of the court that the appeal had merit. More
This is an appeal against both conviction and sentence consequent to the Regional Court’s decision convicting the appellant on three counts of robbery as defined in s 126 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23] (the Criminal Law Code). He was sentenced to 10 years imprisonment on each count with a third of the total sentence suspended for 5 years on the usual conditions of good behaviour to leave the effective sentence at 20 years imprisonment. More
This judgment will dispose of bail application No B 1907/20 and application for condonation of late noting of appeal CON 420/20. The background facts to the two applications is that the applicant together with his two co-accused appeared before the regional magistrate at Marondera Magistrates Court facing three counts of robbery as defined in s 126 (1) (a) (b) of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence. The details of the charges were, firstly, that in count one, it was alleged the three acting in common purpose and by intentional and unlawful use of violence and stabbing the complainant with a knife... More
I dismissed the applicants bail application pending trial on 29 December, 2016. I indicated then that I would provide reasons for my decision in due course. The applicants’ legal practitioner has by letter dated 9 January 2017 made a follow up on the promised reasons for my order. I set them herein below. More
Before me, are two matters involving the same parties and based on the same facts. Case number LC/MS/REV/06/15 is the application for review whilst LC/MS/31/15 is the appeal. For the convenience of the court I have consolidated the judgments in these matters into one, whilst dealing with the application for review first and the appeal, thereafter. More
Plaintiff instituted proceedings by way of a summons against the defendant claiming an order for a decree of divorce and other ancillary relief. Defendant opposed the plaintiff’s claims. The following facts are common cause between the parties;(a) that the marriage has irretrievably broken down.
(b) that defendant shall have custody of the minor children of the marriage.
(c) that plaintiff pays maintenance in terms of the Maintenance Court order under case number M 433/16.
(d) that the parties shall share their household property; and
(e) that each party will get half of the ten (10) goats. More
The first and second applicants in this application are first and third respondents in case No. HC4168/14 wherein Roselyn Murambiwa as executrix dative (Estate Late Phillip Murambiwa) is the applicant. Case NO. HC 4168 is the main case brought as a court application. In case No. HC 4168/14, the applicant sought the reversal of transfer of an immovable property in Karoi which she wants to be included in the estate of her late husband. The property was alledgedly purchased by the respondents who took transfer. More
MABHIKWA J: The plaintiff issued summons against the defendant. She alleged that she and the defendant were married in terms of Shona custom in December 2006. She said that the defendant is therefore her estranged customary law husband. The parties are now living separately and not as husband and wife. There are three minor children born of the union namely Byron Sydwell, Darrel Sydwell and Mia Sydwell Nsingo.
During the subsistence of the said union, there developed and existed a “tacit universal partnership between the parties wherein the two were equal partners. The plaintiff was employed by Exortica Nurseries from... More
The Plaintiff and the Defendant (the parties) are husband and wife having married each other in 1989. Their marriage was solemnized under the Marriage Act [Chapter 5:11] now the Marriages Act [ Chapter 5:17] on 7 August 1989 at Harare. On 6 March 2019, Plaintiff issued out summons claiming an order for a decree of divorce and ancillary relief. In her declaration she averred that the marriage of the parties had irretrievably broken down and there are no prospects of restoration of a normal marriage between them. The reason for the break down was given as physical and emotional abuse... More
The appeal was lodged against the determination by the Group Chief Executive Officer to dismiss the Appellant from employment following herconviction on a charge of violating category C (v) of the Zimbabwe Newspapers (1980)Limited Code of Conduct that is “insolence towards a subordinate, colleague, superior or clients by act, words or demeanor.” More
In 1996 the plaintiff and the defendant entered into an unregistered customary law marriage.Their union was blessed with one child born on 29 January 2009. More
