This is an application made in terms of article 34 of the Model Law which is
the second Schedule to the Arbitration Act [Chapter 7:15] (hereinafter referred to simply as
the Model Law), for the setting aside of an arbitral award made by the Arbitrator on the
grounds set out by the applicant in its founding affidavit. More
The plaintiff issued summons against the 4 defendants as principal officer and agent (in respect of the first defendant) and as directors of a company known as Kettex Holdings (Pvt) Ltd, in which it sought payment of US$1 579 418 being the value of products delivered to Kettex Holdings (Pvt) Ltd for sale. More
This is an application where partiesconsented to have the matter struck off the roll. This is being asked because the record is not properly done. The record which is before the court is paginated differently from the record which the appellant has. This makes the hearing very cumbersome as some documents also appear to be missing or mixed up. This means that the matter cannot be heard in view of the status of the record of proceedings.However the respondent has asked for costs on the higher scale which application the appellant opposes. More
The applicants approached the court with a review application seeking to have the decision of the Master (5th respondent) of accepting the last Will and Testament of the late Bidoff Hollington set aside and that the Will be declared null and void. The issue that falls for determination in this review is whether the fifth respondent’s determination is in accordance with law or not. The applicant relied on two grounds of review as follows:- More
On the 15th April 2021 Harare Applicant, as a Labour Officer, issued a ruling. She ordered 1st Respondent (employer) to reinstate 2nd Respondent (employee) or pay her damages in lieu of reinstatement. Apparently the employer did not comply. Applicant then applied to this Court in terms of section 93(5a) of the Labour Act Chapter 28:01 for the confirmation of her ruling.The employee supported the application whilst the employer opposed it. More
On 5 October, 2017 after reading documents filed of record and hearing counsel I gave an order in favour of the applicant. The written reasons for my disposition are laid out herein. More
The two applicants who are being charged of the Criminal Law (Codification Reform) Act [Cap 9:23] approached the court through the legal practitioner of record on as application for bail pending trial. The state opposed the application. Both counsel for the applicants and respondents in addition to the written submissions orally addressed the court. More
The defendant filed an exception to the plaintiff’s claim as set out in the summons. It did so on the basis that the summons: did not disclose a cause of action; was vague and embarrassing as it failed to show the nature of the agreement that founded the claim; did not conform to the mandatory Commercial Court Rules. Further, the defendant also claimed that on two occasions, the plaintiff filed defective summons in the Magistrates Court which he withdrew and tendered wasted costs. The costs were not paid. The defendant implored the court to uphold the exception and dismiss the... More
The applicant seeks the following order:
“1. The order of this Honourable Court dated 2nd June 2015 under Case Number 448/14 is hereby varied to read judgment is hereby entered in favour of the plaintiff for the sum of US$16 000.00.
2. Respondent shall pay costs of suit.”
The application is opposed by the respondent. More
This is an Urgent Chamber Application for a provisional order whose interim relief sought is stated as follows,
“INTERIM RELIEF GRANTED
Pending the determination of this matter applicant is hereby granted the following relief; More
On 9 March 2021 Never Nyakale, Lucia Nyakale and Portia Nyakale (plaintiffs) sued out a summons in case HC 69/21 against Wisdom Chitura and Helen Maureen Mushore (defendants) seeking a declaratory order that: the agreement between Mushore and Chitura be declared to be of no force and effect on the grounds that it was illegal and invalid; and that Chitura be evicted from the property known as U28 Mzilikazi, Bulawayo (“the disputed property”). More
This judgement has been necessitated by the decision I made with the concurrence of MAFUSIRE J in the appeal case of Tatenda Mhango and 2 ors vs The State HMA 33/19. In that criminal appeal judgement we upheld the appeal in respect of the mandatory minimum9-year jail term on the basis that a pangolin was not a specially protected animal for purposes of section 128 of the Parks and Wildlife Act[Chapter 20:14]. This was contrary to other earlier decisions we and other judges had made in previous cases dealing with accused persons convicted for pangolin related offences. More
This is an application for bail pending trial. Applicant is charged with the crime of murder as defined in section 47(1) (a) of the Criminal Law [Codification and Reform] Act [Chapter 9:23]. It being alleged that on the 2nd June 2019 applicant hired the now deceased (deceased) person who was a sex worker. The two proceeded to Silver Sands Lodge in Bulawayo, at the lodge a misunderstanding ensued which degenerated into a fight. Applicant strangled the deceased resulting in her death and stole her cell phone. Applicant then stashed the body under the bed and fled from the scene. More
This is an appeal against the respondent’s decision in which it dismissed the appellant from its employ. The appellant was dismissed for:
“Theft or failure to take reasonable care or making improper or unauthorised use of state property or the property of any statutory body, statutory fund or local authority including motor vehicles or the failure to take adequate steps to ensure that reasonable care is taken of any such property or failure to report at the earliest opportunity any loss thereof or damage thereto.” More
The facts of this matter are largely common cause. They are as follows:
All the eight appellants are former employees of the respondent. They were dismissed following disciplinary proceedings. The facts pertaining to the charges and evidence are similar hence their respective appeals have been consolidated into one record. Indeed, the respective heads of argument from both sides are the same with respect to each and every one of them. Each one of the appellants was charged with a violation of provisions of the Collective Bargaining Agreement: Mining Industry (Code of Conduct) Statutory Instrument 165/1992. More
