The case came before me as a civil trial. At the close of the plaintiff’s case, the defendant advised the court that it wished to make an application for absolution from the instancein terms Rule 56(6) of the High Court Rules 2021. In this respect, the defendant asked the court to allow him to make written submissions in support of the said application, resulting in the court giving the parties timelines within which to file their respective submissions. The plaintiff opposed the application for reasons I will fully canvas in this judgement. It is imperative to give a background to... More
This is an appeal against the decision of NEC Disciplinary Committee Motor Industry which was issued on the 27 June 2012. The NEC Disciplinary Committee ordered the appellant to reinstate the respondent without loss of salary and benefits.
The respondent had been charged with wilful disobedience to a lawful order by the employer. It was alleged that on the 23 July 2008 whilst the respondent was on duty he refused to carry out a lawful order that was give to him by the General Manager Operations Mr M Ralphs. It is alleged that in the hearing he admitted that he... More
This is an opposed application for condonation and extension of time within which to apply for leave to appeal and for leave to appeal made in terms of s 92F (3) of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01] as read with r 43 (3) and 60 (2) of the Supreme Court Rules 2018. More
On 13 November 2015 at the hearing of this application for condonation of the late noting of an appeal by the applicant employer against the respondents employees, parties agreed that judgment be reserved on the basis that it would be written out based on the heads of arguments and other documents filed of record. This therefore is the judgment in that matter. More
In this application Tregers Industries (“the applicant”) seeks a refund of the sum of $2,183,861,227-71 paid by its bankers to the Zimbabwe Revenue Authority (“the respondent”) at the instance and instructions of the respondent. The application is opposed. More
The applicant seeks the following relief-
“TERMS OF FINAL ORDER SOUGHT
That you show cause to the Honourable Court why a final order should not be made in the following terms-
1. The interim relief be and is hereby confirmed.
2. The execution of a garnishee of accounts during contestation of tax liability be and is hereby declared unlawful.
3. Section 69 of the Income Tax Act [Chapter 23:06] be and is hereby declared unconstitutional and struck down.
4. That the respondent shall pay the costs of this suit on a higher scale of legal practitioner and client only if... More
This is an urgent application for stay of execution of a judgment given in Case No. HC 12328/12. The judgment registered for the purposes of enforcement an arbitral award rendered in terms of section 98 of the Labour Act[Cap 28:01] in favour of the first respondent and against the applicant. The award was submitted for registration in terms of section 98(14) of that Act. The salient facts which culminated in the filing of the instant urgent chamber applicationmay be summarised as follows: More
The applicant seeks a spoliation order in the form of a provisional order couched as follows:
“TERMS OF THE FINAL ORDER SOUGHT
That you show cause to this Honourable Court why a final order should not be made in the following terms.
(a) The forcible ejectment from Wolverhampton Farm of the applicant by the first to third respondents and all those acting in concert with them is unlawful.
(b) The cutting of the applicant’s gum plantation and sale of the timber by the first respondent and those acting through him is unlawful.
(c) The fourth respondent shall do all that... More
The applicant approached this court seeking the following order:
“1. It is be and is hereby declared that, barring, ejectment and or interference of the Applicant’s attendance in the pre-budget consultative meetings and National Assembly on account of Applicant’s wearing of a colourful Rastafari jacket constitutes a violation of his right to freedom of conscience and religion as set out under Section 60 of the Constitution.
2. it is be and is hereby declared that Section 76(1)(a) as read with section 76(5) of the National Assembly Standing Rules and Orders permits the Applicant to wear his Rastafari colourful jacket in... More
Appellant was convicted of one count of indecent assault as defined in s 67 of the Criminal Law Codification and Reform Act, [Chapter 9:23] and another of rape as defined in s 65 of the same Act. He was sentenced to one year in respect of the indecent assault charge and seventeen years in respect of the rape charge. Of the 17 years imprisonment 4 years was suspended for five years on the usual conditions of future good behavior. The one year in respect of the indecent assault charge was ordered to run concurrently with the sentence in respect of... More
On 8 December 2010 at around 1700 hours and in Avonlea Drive, the plaintiff was approached by the defendant who was in company of other officers of the Criminal Investigation Department. The defendant ordered the plaintiff to disembark from the motor vehicle where he was sitting. He ordered the plaintiff to lie on the ground on his back.
The defendant accused the plaintiff of having stolen the motor vehicle he was in. The plaintiff protested his innocence. The defendant who was standing directly above the plaintiff, fired several shots aimed at the plaintiff’s legs. He proceeded to handcuff the complainantand... More
Applicant is the son of Tapson Ndlovu (Tapson) and Maria Ndlpovu (nee Tapera). Maria Ndlovu obtained a decree of divorce and ancillary relief against Tapson Ndlovu by order of this court in HC 788/17. This order was ganted on the 27th of July 2017 and per clause 4(1), the names of Trvor Ndlovu and Talent Ndlovu.
Meanwhile and unknown to applicant, 1st to 31st respondents who are members of a burial society obtained judgment against Tapson on the 11th of May 2017. This judgment was obtained on default of appearance of Tapson. The order directed Tapson to pay the sum... More
This is chamber application by the applicants seeking the dismissal of the court application under case No. HC 8289/16 filed by the respondent against the applicants. The chamber application is brought in terms of r 236 (4) (b) of the Rules of the High Court which reads;
“(4) Where the applicant has filed an answering affidavit in response to the respondent’s opposing affidavit but has not, within a month thereafter, set the matter down for hearing, the respondent, on notice to the applicant, may either—
(a) set the matter down for hearing in terms of r 223; or
(b) make... More
