The respondents are husband and wife. They are before this Court pursuant to a suit for defamation instituted by them in the High Court against the appellants herein. In the declaration, the first respondent is described as an Ambassador. It is a description which appears common cause. The first appellant is the editor of the Newsday Newspaper, with the second appellant being the publisher, printer and distributer of the publication. More
GWAUNZA DCJ
[1] This is an appeal against a judgment of the High Court which found that the appellants and the respondenthad concluded a loan agreement and consequently ordered the appellants to pay certain amounts of money to the respondent.
After hearing the parties, the court dismissed the appeal with costs and indicated that thereasons for the order would follow in due course. These are the reasons. More
This is an application in terms of s 85 (1) of the Constitution.
The applicants seek an order affirming the first applicant’s constitutional right to belong to a trade union of his choice in terms of s 65(2) of the Constitution. They also seek an order declaring as unconstitutional and a violation of this fundamental right, the conduct of the respondent in: -
1. refusing the first applicant permission to belong to and participate in the lawful activities of the Zimbabwe Banks and Allied Workers Union (ZIBAWU); and
2. giving him the ultimatum to choose between his job and the... More
This is an application in terms of s 85(1)(a) of the Constitution and the background to the matter is as follows: -
The applicants are all citizens of, but are not resident in, Zimbabwe. They give different reasons for their absence, with the first applicant citing political reasons. The second applicant cites economic reasons while the third applicant alleges his absence is premised on economic and political reasons. The applicants state that they wish to participate in the country’s harmonized general elections due later this year, 2018, but are precluded from doing so by certain sections of the relevant law. More
This is a chamber application made in terms of r 12 of the Supreme Court Rules ,1964.
The brief background to this application may be summarised as follows:
The applicants are husband and wife. They approached the court a quo, by way of urgent chamber application, seeking a stay of execution and return of goods which had been removed pursuant to a writ of execution following a default judgment which was granted in favour of the second respondent. The default judgment, related to a claim by the second respondent, who was the legal practitioner for the second applicant, claiming unpaid... More
The two applicants are Members of Parliament. They brought two separate applications in terms of s 167(2)(d) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (No. 20) 2013 (“the Constitution”), as read with r 27 of the Constitutional Court Rules. They alleged failure by Parliament to fulfil the constitutional obligation to act in accordance with the procedure for amending the Constitution prescribed by s 328 of the Constitution. The allegations in the applications are the same. So are the issues. More
This matter was referred to this court by a magistrate in terms of s 24 (2) of the former Constitution of Zimbabwe. After hearing the parties, judgment was reserved. More
MATHONSI JA: This is an appeal against the whole judgment of the High Court handed down on 23 July 2020 which declared the first respondent the rightful owner of a Cat Caterpillar Dump Truck 769C. The Caterpillar was purchased by the first respondent at a judicial auction conducted by the Sheriff on 18 October 2019 at Devuli Farm in Bikita.
After hearing arguments we issued the following order:
“1. The appeal be and is hereby dismissed.
2. By consent, the appellant shall pay costs at the ordinary scale.
3. The reasons for judgment will be delivered in due course.” More
This is an opposed application for condonation and reinstatement of an appeal in terms of r 43 as read with r 70m of the Supreme Court Rules 2018. More
On 1 March 2018 the applicants filed a chamber application for leave for direct access to the Constitutional Court in terms of r 21(2) of the Constitutional Court Rules SI 61 of 2016 (“the Rules”). The first and second applicants are political parties represented by the third and fourth applicants respectively. The fifth applicant is a political activist. He is not a member of any of the political parties. It is not explained in the papers why the political parties were joined with him in the making of the application. More
This is an appeal against the whole judgment of the High Court handed down on 1 June 2020 granting an interdict in favour of the first and second respondents. More
This is an application for relief in terms of s 24(1) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe (as amended by Constitution Amendment No. 19) (hereinafter referred to as “the Constitution”). More
This is a chamber application for an order for leave to appeal to the Constitutional Court (“the Court”) against a decision of the Supreme Court (“the court a quo”). The application is made in terms of r 32(2) of the Constitutional Court Rules S.I. 61/2016 (“the Rules”). More
