This is an appeal against the decision of an arbitrator wherein the Arbitrator set aside the employer’s decision to dismiss the respondent and made an award ordering the respondent’s reinstatement with an alternative of an award for damages should reinstatement be no longer possible. More
The applicant seeks a declaratur to the effect that the amount of US$ 788 296.21 which is stated in the respondents’ Writ of Execution which was issued out of this Honourable Court on 8 May 2014 was converted to RTGS at the rate of 1:1 by operation of the law. More
This is an application for joinder wherein the applicant seeks to be joined in two appeals pending before this Court, that is, SC 304/20 and SC 326/20.
The facts leading to this application may be summarised as follows:
The applicant was a holder of an offer letter in respect of Plot 4of Glebe Farm, Goromonzi. The second,third and fourthrespondents were also holders of offer letters in respect of separate plots on the same farm. The fifth respondent is the authority which issued the offer letters to the applicant and the second, third andfourthrespondents. More
The respondent instituted proceedings in this court in case number HC 1901/11 seeking an order for payment of the sum of US$17735-00 being the balance of the purchase price for goods sold and delivered to the two applicants, interest at the prescribed rate and costs of suit. The summons commencing action was served upon the applicants on 9 March 2011. More
This is an application for quantification of damages due to the applicant employee from the respondent employer.
The rest of the issues in this matter are common cause if regard is had to the oral submissions made by the parties on the hearing date. In summary form parties are agreed on the rest of the quantification figures and the law giving rise to these. The only divergence is where applicant claim 18 months damages and the respondent offers 5 months instead. It is only this aspect which is addressed by this judgment.
Applicant claims 18 months damages citing the fact... More
On the 25th April 2022 at Bindura, applicant qua Labour Officer issued a ruling. He ordered 1st respondent (employer) to reinstated 2nd respondent (employee) or pay damages in lieu of reinstatement. Apparently, the employer did not comply with the ruling. Then applicant applied to this Court for the confirmation of his ruling in terms of section 93(5a) of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01], hereafter called the Act. The employer opposed the application whilst the employee naturally supported the application. More
: On 14 October 2011 the plaintiff issued summons against the first and second defendants. The second defendant (excipient) excepted to the summons. More
The applicants raised certain claims against their employer which is the respondent in casu. They claimed payment of the following allowances: medical, housing, utilities, shift and underground, cafeteria, production bonuses and food hampers. They took their case to arbitration. The learned arbitrator heard submissions from the applicants and the respondent which the applicants cited as Freda Rebecca Gold Mine. He entered judgment for the applicants. The arbitral award as quantified came to a staggering figure of $1 494 450.64. More
On 11 March 2015, the High Court granted part of the claim sought by Valentine Ziswa and his wife Margaret Ziswa (the cross appellants) against Graeme Shaun Chadwick and Landos (Pvt) Ltd (the cross respondents). The court a quo dismissed the claims of the cross appellants as against the second cross respondent in their entirety and granted part of the claims as against the first cross respondent. The cross appellants seek a reversal of the dismissal orders issued a quo. More
The plaintiff and defendant were married in terms of the Marriages Act, [Cap 5:11] on 8 December 2000. They had commenced living together as husband and wife in the year 1998 on a date they were not agreed on. On 15 October 1998 they had married under customary law.
Their marriage was not blessed with any child.
In October 2008 plaintiff brought this action seeking a decree of divorce and an equitable distribution of assets she alleged the couple had accumulated. She alleged that the marriage had irretrievably broken down to an extent whereby there was no reasonable prospect of... More
Before us is an appeal and cross appeal. The brief background facts which are common cause are that the appellant has been leasing the respondent’s premises, namely shops 10 and 11 Kensington Centre in Harare (the premises), for the past twenty-five plus years. Throughout this relationship, the parties would conclude periodic leases and the last such agreement was executed on 12 September 2019. It would run from 1 September 2019 to 31 December 2020. In terms of clause 3, the rentals were payable in Zimbabwean dollars at the Stanbic Bank midrate for the day, charged per month. For the period... More
The applicant sought a provisional order which I granted as amended on 3 May 2021. Reasons for my order have been requested in writing for the purposes of an appeal, which has since been lodged. The provisional order sought was to effectively grant the applicant unrestricted access to the unoccupied portion of Modzone Farm. Below are the reasons behind my decision. More
