The matter was placed before me as an appeal hearing. At the commencement of this hearing the Applicant (Respondent in the main matter)raised a preliminary point. The point was that the Respondent having filed his appeal against the Applicant’s Appeals Committee to this Court, the Applicant having in turn filed its notice of opposition in the matter (on 12th October 2011) the Respondent then filed its Heads of Argument on (23rd September 2013) almost two years after the notice of opposition. It was Applicant’s position that by virtue of Rule 19 of the Labour Court Rules,Statutory Instrument 59 of 2006the... More
This is an appeal from the decision of an Arbitrator who found that the termination of the Respondents’ Contract of employment by the Appellant (ZESA) was unlawful and he ordered that ZESA should retrench the Respondents.
The facts of the matter are that the Respondents were employed by ZESA on three months fixed term contracts. These contracts were renewed for periods varying between 2 and 4 years, on 4 August 2010, ZESA gave notice that the contracts would not be renewed. The Respondents’ were dissatisfied with the termination of their contracts and they claimed that they had been unfairly dismissed. More
CHIGUMBA J: Plaintiff issued summons against the defendants, on 24 March 2011, claiming:
1. An order declaring that Plaintiff is the lawful owner of stand 449 Borrowdale Brooke Township of stand 137 Borrowdale Brooke township (hereinafter referred to as the property in question).
2. An order setting aside the caveat placed on Deed of transfer number 4012/2010 at the instance of the second defendant.
3. An order compelling the first defendant to take all necessary steps required in order to effect transfer to the Plaintiff of the property situate in the district of Salisbury called stand 449 Borrowdale Brooke township... More
This was an appeal against the whole judgment of the High Court delivered on 13 May 2015. After perusing the record and hearing the submissions of the parties, this Court allowed the appeal and indicated that the reasons would be availed in due course. More
The dispute in this application arises from the disputed ownership, control and management of the first respondent company. The first respondent is a duly incorporated and registered company in accordance with the laws of Zimbabwe. The company carries on the business of inter alia manufacturing, importation and exportation of explosives. Its principal place of business is stand 16306 Alaska Mine,Road, Chirorodziva Heights, Stratchoma Township Chinhoyi.
The first applicant, second, third and fourth respondents are foreign nationals of Chinese origin. The second respondent is resident in China and is Director of the first respondent.The third and fourthrespondents as well as the... More
The applicant filed an application seeking an order for substituted service in terms of Order 6 Rule 46. The facts of the matter are as set out in the applicants founding affidavit and may be summarised as follows: More
The brief facts upon which the criminal charge is premised involve the sale of a plot which belonged to Maxwell Sibanda but had been bought by SmithMoyo. One Progress Dube obtained judgment against Sibanda and the plot was attached to be sold in execution. The applicant represented Progress Dube. Smith Moyo’s interpleader application was dismissed whereupon SmithMoyo decided to take over payment of the debt so as to save the plot from being sold. Following that agreement the plot was transferred to Smith Moyo. Despite that agreement and the payment of the debt by SmithMoyo, the plot was subsequently auctioned... More
[1] This matter was placed before me as an urgent chamber application. I have been requested to give reasons for the dismissal of the application. These are they.
[2] The applicant sought relief relating to the freeing by the respondent of the sum of ZWL $34, 700,000(Thirty- Four Million Seven Hundred Thousand Dollars) that the former claimed was due to it and was being unlawfully held by the latter. More
This is an appeal against the whole decision of the High Court sitting in Bulawayo under judgment number HB 16/14 dated 30 January 2014 in which the appellants’ application for absolution from the instance at the close of the first defendants case was dismissed. More
On 29 June, 2017 the applicant and the respondent (“the parties”) concluded a lease agreement between them. Following the conclusion of the contract, the applicant leased to the first respondent its Furnaces 1, 3, 4 and their associated infrastructure. These are at its Ferrochrome production facility which is in Kwekwe.
Consent to removal of Furnace 1 from the contract was agreed between the parties. The agreement was in terms of a letter which is dated 9 October, 2018.
The lease provided that rentals were payable in United States dollars. They were/are calculated retrospectively by reference to the amount of minerals... More
The Applicant brought this application pursuant to Article 13 of Schedule 1 of the Arbitration Act [Chapter 7:15] for the recusal of Mr. Terry, the second Respondent, as Arbitrator of Applicant’s dispute with the first Respondent. More
This is an opposed application wherein the applicant seeks the following relief:-
“1 Respondent shall within two hours of the service of this order on him restore the following property to the applicant;
(a) Mitsubishi Pajero 3.0 Registration Number AAV-5956;
(b) laptop HP Compaq 6720;
(c) Cellphone Samsung D880
2. The cost of this application shall be borne by the respondent”. More
This is an application for vindication. The application was first argued before me on 11 March 2010 and on 21 July 2010, I ruled that the High Court had no jurisdiction since the matter before me was a labour dispute. The applicant appealed against my ruling and on 31 January 2011 the Supreme Court issued the following order:-
“IT IS RDERED THAT:
1. The appeal be and is hereby allowed with costs.
2. The order of the High Court is set aside with costs.
3. The matter be remitted to the High Court for determination before the same Judge” More
This is an application for condonation for the late filing of an application for review. Should this application succeed, the application intends to seek a review of the decision of the 1st respondent rendered on the 1st of September 2022. In that decision 1st respondent declined to entertain the dispute between the applicant and the 2nd respondent on the basis that a determination over the same dispute had already been rendered in March 2014 (which case was captioned as Dispute/Falcon Gold 1 D Stoddart/2014) hence there was no need to re-open it. More
