This is an appeal against the decision of the arbitrator where he ruled that appellant had resigned from her employment with respondent hence was not entitled to payment of notice pay or retrenchment package.
The background to the matter is that appellant who was in the respondent’s employ wrote on 4 April 2014 to respondent resigning from her job. She however wrote another letter on 7 April 2014 cancelling her resignation. The respondent accepted her resignation and paid her what was due to her. She was irked by the fact that respondent did not consider the withdrawal of the first... More
This is a divorce matter between the parties who were initially married to each other under customary law in 1994. The defendant was at the material time married to his first wife under general law. The defendant’s first wife subsequently died in 2000 and the parties then solemnised their marriage under the Marriage Act [Chapter 5:11] on 23 October 2006. More
Several allegations including criminal ones have been raised against the respondents by the applicant supported by one Felix Chikase.
I am concerned with the manner in which these allegations have been framed against the 26 respondents. None of the deponents have raised specific allegations against each of the respondents but the allegations are of a general nature. Not even the applicant’s security officers have deposed to an affidavit indicating what each of the respondents has done in the furtherance of the allegations levelled against them. More
Appellant worked for Respondent as a Security Guard. She was charged with misconduct (gross incompetence or inefficiency). A hearing was held. The disciplinary authority found her guilty and recommended her dismissal. Appellant appealed. The Mine Manager dismissed the appeal. Appellant then appealed to this Court in terms of Section 92 D of the Labour Act Chapter 28:01. Respondent opposed the appeal. More
On 28 January 2025 this court handed down the order which read as follows “Application for review being without merit it be and is hereby dismissed with costs on the ordinary scale. The court indicated to the parties that reasons for the order could be availed to them on request. A request for the dame has been made by the applicant. More
This is an appeal against a judgment in favour of the Respondent handed down on 5 May 2021 at the Harare Magistrates Court.
Respondent had issued summons claiming payment of an equivalent of $4 370.00 USD, being tenant placement fees, at the auction rate,plus interest thereon at the prescribed rate calculated from 8 January 2019 to date of payment in full. Respondent also claimed costs of suit on a legal practitioner and client scale as well as collection commission. The particulars of claim were that on 8 January 2019, the parties entered into an Owner’s Mandate to Lease in terms... More
First plaintiff (“Beverley”) is a Zimbabwean based in the United Kingdom. She instructed second plaintiff (“Charles) to represent her in a deal to purchase a residential stand in Ashdown Park, Harare. First defendant (“Carson”) is the firm of real estate agents who facilitated the transaction, represented by second defendant (“Ngoni”) their alleged employee or consultant. Beverley and Charles allege that the third defendant (“Richard”) who sold them the stand, later turned dishonest by selling the same stand to another person. Beverley and Charles accuse Carson and Ngoni of negligence in failing to prevent the loss caused by Richard’s alleged fraudulent... More
The Applicant was seeking an interdict against the Respondent in the following terms:-
1. The Respondent and all its agents be and are hereby interdicted from carrying out farming activities on Applicant’s farm being Lot 1 of Wallacedale farm, Odzi- Mutare.
2. The Respondent and all its agents be and are ordered not to interfere in any way with Applicant’s farming activities at the farm named in (1) above.
3. The Respondent and all its agents are barred from entering into the Applicant’s farm and interdicted from using and taking/ removing any farming equipment from Applicant’s farm.
4. The Respondent... More
This is a composite application for condonation for non-compliance with the rules of the court, extension of time within which to note an appeal and the reinstatement of an appeal. The application was made in terms of rule 60(1) of the High Court rules, 2021. The applicant seeks the following relief.
“IT IS ORDERED THAT
a) The failure to comply with rule 95 (17) of the High Court rules, 2021 be and is hereby condoned.
b) The application for extension of time within which to appeal be and is hereby granted.
c) The application for reinstatement of appeal be and... More
This is a judgment on a preliminary point raised on behalf of the applicant in an application for review.
The facts are common cause. They are as follows. The applicant filed the application for review and duly served the respondent. The respondent was supposed to have filed the notice of opposition within ten (10) days of receipt of the application, that is to say, by the 31st of March 2025. It did not do so . Instead it filed the notice on the 4th of April 2025. This was obviously out of time. There was no application for condonation for... More
This is a judgment on a preliminary point raised on behalf of the applicant in an application
for review.
The facts are common cause. They are as follows. The applicant filed the application for
review and duly served the respondent. The respondent was supposed to have filed the notice
of opposition within ten (10) days of receipt of the application, that is to say, by the 31st of
March 2025. It did not do so . Instead it filed the notice on the 4th of April 2025. This was
obviously out of time. There was no application for condonat More
This is an appeal against an arbitral award handed down by Honourable Kare where he ruled that the now appellant was not entitled to automatic renewal of his three year contract and that the now respondent pay to the appellant three months salary in lieu of notice and all calculable benefits among to the appellant. More
DUBE-BANDA J: This is a bail application pending trial. Applicants are jointly charged with two counts of robbery as defined in section 126 (1) (a) of the Criminal law [Codification and Reform] Act Chapter 9:23. It being alleged that, on 5 February 2021, at Warmaley Stamping Mill, Mpoengs area, Plumtree applicants used violence by arming themselves with knives and machetes in order to induce complainants to relinquish their various properties, which included a grinding machine, welding machine, 12v generator battery, fuel, airtime, cellphone, car radio, car registration book, brown wallet, cash in the sum of R17 600, 14 grams of... More
This is an application for bail pending trial. The applicant faces a charge of armed robbery as defined in section 126 of the Criminal Law Codification and Reform Act Chapter 9:23. More
At the hearing of this matter, the applicant applied for a postponement.
The reasons for applying for postponement is that they want time to file their heads of arguments which they failed to file in terms of the rules.
The provisions of law are very clear. The respondent ought to have filed their heads in terms of Rule 15. More
