Welcome to Midlands State University Library

Court Judgements



Browse all Court Judgements
The Applicants and the first respondent entered into a Joint Venture Agreement on 19 April 2019 for the purpose of conducting farming activities at Kwayedza Farm (crebilly), Zvimba District (the farm). The first Respondent is the holder of a 99 year lease in respect of the farm and Applicants were to be the financial and technical partners in the agreement. In furtherance of the joint venture agreement, Applicants brought a herd of cattle sheep onto the farm. The cattle are being kept on an open grazing basis and in excess of 200. More

THIS IS AN APPLICATION FOR REVIEW IN TERMS OF SECTION 89(I)(DI) AND 92 EE(I) OF THE LABOUR ACT [CAP 28:01] AS AMENDED BY THE LABOUR(AMENDMENT) ACT 5 OF 2015 AND AS ALSO READ WITH RULE 20(I) OF THE LABOUR COURT RULES, 2017. IN LIMINE THE APPLICANT THROUGH HIS HEADS OF ARGUMENT TOOK A POINT IN LIMINE THAT THE RESPONDENTS WERE IMPROPERLY BEFORE THE COURT AND WERE TECHNICALLY BARRED. IT WAS APPLICANT CONTENTION THAT IN TERMS OF RULE 20(2) OF THE LABOUR COURT RULES 2017, A NOTICE OF RESPONSE TO AN APPLICATION FOR REVIEW HAS TO BE FILED WITHIN TEN DAYS OF THE DATE OF RECEIPT OF THIS APPLICATION. IN THIS CASE THE RESPONDENTS HAVING BEEN SERVED WITH THE APPLICATION FOR REVIEW ON THE 17TH OF DECEMBER, 2019 WERE REQUIRED TO HAVE FILED THEIR RESPONSE WITHIN TEN DAYS OF THAT DATE. THE RESPONDENTS HAD HOWEVER FILED THEIR NOTICE OF RESPONSE ON THE 1ST OF JANUARY 2020 CLEARLY OUT OF TIME. (2020-07-31)
This is an application for review in terms of Section 89(i)(di) and 92 EE(i) of the Labour Act [Cap 28:01] as amended by the Labour(Amendment) Act 5 of 2015 and as also read with rule 20(I) of the Labour Court rules, 2017. IN LIMINE The Applicant through his heads of argument took a point in limine that the Respondents were improperly before the court and were technically barred. It was Applicant contention that in terms of Rule 20(2) of the Labour Court Rules 2017, a Notice of Response to an application for review has to be filed within ten days... More

This is an application in terms of Rule 22. The respondent failed to file its notice of response within the prescribed time. The brief History of the matter is outlined below: On 12 October 2015 the matter was referred before me in terms of rule 22 of the Labour Court rules. The respondent had been served with an application for review and an appeal. The appeal and the application for review had been duly served on the respondent on 9 June 2015. Certificates of service were filed as of record to prove such service. More

This an application for review of an arbitral award in terms of Article34(2) of the 1st schedule to the Arbitration Act. The Arbitrators ordered as follows; “1. From 1January 2011 to 30June 2011 – the current wage position will prevail for that period. 2.From 1July 2011 to 31December 2011 – an increase on the present minimum wage of grade one of the Ferro –Alloy NEC of 20%.” More

THIS REVIEW JUDGMENT ADDRESSES THE CASE OF THE STATE VERSUS ANESU BHOBHO, CONVICTED UNDER S 70(1)(A) OF THE CRIMINAL LAW CODIFICATION AND REFORM ACT [CHAPTER 9:23], WHICH PERTAINS TO THE OFFENSE OF HAVING SEXUAL INTERCOURSE WITH A YOUNG PERSON. THE MAGISTRATES COURT, ON 10 FEBRUARY 2025, SENTENCED THE OFFENDER TO 24 MONTHS OF IMPRISONMENT WITH 12 MONTHS SUSPENDED LEAVING AN EFFECTIVE JAIL TERM OF 12 MONTHS. THE REASONS GIVEN FOR OPTING FOR A CUSTODIAL SENTENCE WERE CURSORILY CAPTURED AS FOLLOWS; “HOWEVER OWING TO THE SERIOUSNESS OF THE OFFENCE AND ITS PREVALENCE THE COURT WILL SETTLE FOR A CUSTODIAL SENTENCE AS COMMUNITY SERVICE OR A FINE WILL TRIVIALISE THE OFFENCE.” THIS JUDGMENT SEEKS TO REASSESS THE SENTENCING BASED ON PROCEDURAL CONSIDERATIONS AND THE SPECIFICS OF THE CASE. (2025-03-10)
The plaintiff sued the defendant for breach of contract. In its plea the defendant has raised an objection that the matter ought to be referred for arbitration as per agreement of the parties. That objection has been resisted by the plaintiff who also fights back that the objection was not raised procedurally. More

This is a court application brought in terms of s 167(2)(d) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (No. 20) Act 2013 (“the Constitution”). The section provides that only the Constitutional Court (“the Court”) may determine whether Parliament or the President has failed to fulfil a constitutional obligation. More

This is an application for bail pending appeal. Applicants appeared before a Regional Magistrate sitting in Bulawayo facing a charge of theft as defined in section 113 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act (Chapter 9:23). See Annexure A and B being the charge sheet and state outline respectively. Briefly the facts are that on the 13th of October 2022, the applicants were seen cutting and rolling armoured copper cables at Steam Loc National Railways of Zimbabwe. This occurred around 0300 hours. Applicants were arrested by NRZ security guards who found them in possession of five rolls of armoured... More

1st applicant who holds herself out as the Acting President of the political formation known as the Movement forDemocratic Change (T) , hereinafter referred to as MDC-T, brought this application under a Certificate of Urgency. This is an application for an interdict. More

This is an appeal against the whole judgment of the High Court sitting at Harare upholding the appellant’s conviction and sentence by the Regional Court on a charge of rape. More

The applicant instituted the application in casu seeking an order that: “1. It be and is hereby declared that no special grant or mining rights may be awarded to the first respondent, or anyone, by the second or third respondents or anyone acting in their stead, in respect of (the) property known as Subdivision 1 of Highway Estate in Makonde District of Mashonaland West Province, measuring approximately 65.60 hectares. More

The plaintiff on 24 February 2011 issued summons out of this court seeking an order of sharing of the assets of the parties on the basis of the common law principle of unjust enrichment. More

On 3rd September 2010 this Court ordered Respondent to reinstate Applicant or pay him damages in lieu of reinstatement. Respondent chose to pay damages. The parties were unable to agree on quantum of the damages. Applicant then filed this application for assessment of damages. Respondent filed opposing papers. The attorneys agreed that the matter be determined on the basis of the documents filed of record. More

The brief allegations were that at the material time of the commission of the alleged offence, the appellant was employed by the complainant company as a Sales Manager at its Bulawayo Depot. On 16 December 2020, the appellant instructed the now acquitted accused person, who was a driver employed at the same company together with the appellant, to go and deliver 300 cases of Pepsi Drink at Renkini Country Bus Terminus contrary to an earlier lawful and known instruction to deliver the same consignment to Plumtree Bakery in Plumtree. This second instruction was verbal and was made in the presence... More

This is an appeal against the decision of the Negotiating Committee of the National Employment Council for the Commercial Sector (NECCS) which upheld the dismissal of the Appellant from Respondent’s employment. More

I dismissed the applicant’s application for bail pending trial on 2 December, 2016. I reserved my reasons for my order. More