The first, second and third respondents have through their legal practitioners requested that I prepare and avail my reasons for the provisional order which I granted in favour of the applicant on 21 September 2017. This application is one of those unusual ones where family members fight each other tooth and nail over earthly riches. More
At the centre of this dispute is a company called WENTSO MILLING (PVT) LTD. The company is duly registered and incorporated in accordance with the laws of Zimbabwe, which company operates a regulated gold mining and milling business in the Shamva area of Mashonaland Central in Zimbabwe. The company though a legal persona was not cited in these proceedings. The company was founded by the applicant WENDALL ROBERT PARSON and the third respondent VINYU TSOKA from where the name was derived- “Wen” for Wendall and “tso” for Tsoka. The applicant claims to be a 60% shareholder and director in the... More
The brief background of this matter is that the appellants were employed by respondent. The 2nd appellant was a Clerk and the 1st appellant was a messenger. They were charged with fraud and alternatively theft by conversion. It was alleged that during the period ranging from the 6th of April 20120 to the 6th of June 2011, the appellants withdrew council monies in the sum of US$63 853.52 without lawful authority and converted the money to own use thereby prejudicing council. Alternatively, they were charged with theft by conversion in that they converted the respondent’s money to own use. They... More
On 19 December 2014 judgment was handed down in favour of applicant. Respondent sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court which application was dismissed on 24 July 2015. On 20 November 2015 applicant filed an application for quantification of damages which is the subject of this judgment. More
This is an appeal against the decision of the respondent’s Appeals Committee. The Appeals Committee upheld the Disciplinary Committee’s decision to dismiss the appellant from employment after it found him guilty of misconduct. More
This is an appeal against the arbitral award that was issued by Honourable Arbitrator Kare on 16 January 2014. The award reads as follows
“Having carefully considered both oral and written submissions from both parties i hereby declare that
a) Claimant was unfairly dismissed
b) In light of this, I hereby order respondent to reinstate claimant with immediate effect without pay and benefits during the period of dismissal. If reinstatement is not an option, respondent is alternatively ordered to pay damages to claimant for the employment lost in terms of section 13 of the Labour Act. The quantum of damages... More
On the 8th of March 2019 a chamber application for dismissal for want of prosecution was placed before me. I granted the order on 2nd April 2019.
I have been requested to provide reasons for the decision. These are my reasons.
A Chamber Application for dismissal for want of prosecution is governed by the provisions of order 32 Rule 236 (4) (b). The rule provides as follows:
“4. Where the applicant has filed an answering affidavit in response to the respondent’s opposing affidavit but has not, within one month thereafter set the matter down for hearing, the notice, on notice... More
This is an application for leave to produce an additional affidavit in terms of r 58(12) of the High Court Rules, 2021. The parties are embroiled in some dispute in a matter that is already pending before this court under HC 1968/21 (the main application). The first respondent is the applicant in that matter, while the second respondent is the first respondent. The applicant herein is the second respondent. In the main application, the first respondent seeks a mandamus to compel the second respondent herein to ensure that the applicant complies with its development permit. It also wants the second... More
At the pre-trial conference that was held on 21 August 2007, two issues were referred to trial. The first issue sought a determination of the suitable custodian parent, while the second concerned the distribution of both the urban and rural immovable properties of the parties. The parties agreed that their marriage had broken down beyond repair. They agreed that the maintenance order issued by the Magistrates Court remain in force and that neither party required personal maintenance from the other. They also agreed on the method and manner of distributing the movables. During trial the parties further agreed on the... More
The applicant seeks the winding up of the respondent on the basis that it is deemed to be unable to pay its debts by virtue of s 205 (a) of the Companies Act [Cap 24;03]. More
This is an opposed application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against the decision of this Court. The Applicant who was the Respondent in the main matter failed to file Heads of Argument within the prescribed time in terms of Rule 19 (3) (2) (a) (ii) of the Labour Court Rules. The applicant was barred in terms of Rule 19 (3) (b) of the rules and an order was issued in favour of the Respondent. More
The applicant’s members have been employed by the first respondent. On the 5th of February 2014 the employees were awarded $59 246-85 by Hon N.A. Mutongoreni, the Arbitrator. On the 24th of September 2015 the award was registered by this court under HC5433/15. The second respondent executed the order but could not collect the whole amount, a balance of $8 302.72 remained outstanding. The applicant reinstructed the Deputy Sheriff for a second chance. The first respondent filed an urgent chamber application on the 4th of August 2017 under HC 7246/17 for an interdict. On the 9th of August 2017 the... More
