The three applicants instituted the instant chamber application on an urgent basis seeking in the interim an interdict restraining the respondents from proceeding with an inquiry which commenced on 20 June, 2012, pending the determination of case number HC 3768/12. The matter was initially set down for hearing on 22 June 2012 at 1000 hours. On that day Mr Ndudzo who had just filed opposing papers that same morning advised that he represented only the first respondent although he had filed a notice of opposition stating that he was representing both respondents. For that reason, I directed that the second... More
This is an opposed court application. The facts of the matter are as follows;
The applicant is a qualified surgeon practising as such in Harare. He is a registered member of the respondent. On 15 January 2009, applicant lodged a complaint with the respondent against three of its registered medical practitioners. Applicant believed that the medical practitioners he specifically mentioned in his letter of complaint had committed wrongful acts that constituted professional misconduct in terms of the Health Profession Act, Chapter 27:19. More
1. This is an application for leave to file an additional affidavit in HC 345/20 (main application). The applicant seeks an order couched in the following terms:
i. The applicant be and is hereby granted leave to file a supplementary affidavit under case number HC 345/20.
ii. The applicant shall file such an affidavit within 5 days of the date of this order.
iii. There is no order as to costs. More
Notwithstanding the fact that the matter was disposed of on the basis of an order by consent, a written judgment was necessary to clarify the law on the issue behind the interpretation of s 93(5a) of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01] (“the Act”). More
This judgment is given in default of appearance by the respondents. I am much concerned by the conduct of the officials from the office of the Attorney General, the second respondent herein. More
The underlying issue in the review application before me relates to a blocked thoroughfare in a farming location. Applicant fenced off an unnamed road off thus triggering an unresolved dispute with second respondent. The second respondent approached the magistrate`s court at Marondera and obtained an order from first respondent directing applicant to restore free passage. More
In this matter the Plaintiff issued summons claiming:-
a) $50 000-00 being damages for the unlawful suspension of the marketing licence agreement.
b) $1 350-00 being the reimbursement of the value of plaintiff’s licences used without plaintiff’s consent and authority.
c) $64 350-00 being 5% gross turn-over for the unauthorized use of the plaintiff’s licences.
d) $25 000-00 being refund of plaintiff’s capital injected into the service station.
e) $73 935-29 being payment for losses incurred at the service station due to the defendant’s failure and negligence in monitoring the service station equipment
f) $44 283-00 being the reimbursement for... More
Appellant was in Respondent’s employ as an Engineer. In terms of Section 29.4 and 29.18 of Respondent’s Code of Conduct (THE CODE) Appellant was charged with neglect of duty/responsibility and damage to company property. He was found guilty of both and was issued with a final written warning for the first charge and a dismissal for the second one. More
This is an application for leave to lodge further submissions.
The applicant was employed as an accounting assistant at Gweru Magistrates Court when he was charged and convicted of defeating the course of justice on allegations of causing the disappearance of a court record. He was sentenced to imprisonment for an effective eighteen months. He served a term of three months and four days from 1 June 2007 to 4 September 2007 when he was granted bail pending appeal. More
This is an application for rescission of judgment made in terms of Rule 33 of the Labour Court Rules, S I 59/2006, as read with section 92 C (1)(c) of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01]. More
The appellant was a clerk of court at Magistrates Court, Karoi, when he was convicted of defeating or obstructing the course of justice. He was sentenced to 24 months imprisonment of which 6 months were suspended for four years on conditions of good behavior. He appeals against both his conviction and sentence. The record shows that two notices of appeal were filed within the stipulated period within which to file the notice, one by his legal practitioners and another by the appellant, personally. As he has since been granted leave to prosecute his appeal in person, nothing should really turn... More
At the hearing of this appeal we made the following order after reviewing the record of proceedings in terms of s26 of the High Court Act, [Chapter 7:06].
“The conviction be and is hereby quashed and the sentence set aside. The record is remitted to the court a quo for a trial de novo before a different magistrate.”
The reasons for the above order are as follows.
The appellant, who was unrepresented at his trial, pleaded guilty to one count of negligent driving in contravention of section 52(2) of the Road Traffic Act [Chapter 13:11].He was sentenced to 36 months... More
The crucial legal issue raised in this matter is this. Can a Councillor of a rural district council who has been suspended from office in terms of s278 of the Constitution as read with s157 of the Rural District Councils Act [Chapter 29:13] as amended by s2 of the Local Government Laws Amendment Act of 2016 and the time frame for acting by the responsible Minister lapses be suspended again on the same allegations? As the record will show, the legal practitioners lost an opportunity to advance argument on this crucial jurisprudential aspect. More
On 8 May 2008 applicant filed this application seeking an order compelling the first respondent to cede his rights, title and interest in stand No. 12637 Zengeza 5, Chitungwiza into the applicant’s name and also that- fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh respondents be declared not to have any interest in Stand No. 12637 Zengeza 5, Chitungwiza More
The Appellant was employed by the Respondent as an Engineering Manager. He was charged with three counts of habitual and substantial neglect of duties. Following a full disciplinary hearing the disciplinary hearing official found him guilty and subsequently dismissed him from employment. More
