This is an appeal against the judgment of the Labour Court handed down on 14 February 2014 in which the respondent was reinstated to his former position without loss of salary or benefits. More
The appellant appeals against the whole judgment handed down by the Special Court for Income Tax Appeals (the court a quo) on 8 July 2020 in ITC 10/19. The court a quo allowed the respondent’s appeal against the appellant’s disallowance of transport expenses purportedly incurred by the respondent in the disposal of concentrates from its mine in the 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016 tax years (the relevant tax years). More
This is an appeal against the judgment of the Fiscal Appeal Court setting aside the classification and revaluation by the appellant’s Commissioner of Customs and Excise of a 2006 white box van Iveco 40C14 motor vehicle. The respondent imported the motor vehicle in question through the Plumtree Border Post on 23 August 2013. It’s clearing agent declared the motor vehicle as a “2006 IVECO DAILY BOX VAN MODIFIED AS AN AMBULANCE”. That much is not in dispute. What is in dispute is the proper classification of the motor vehicle in question for the purposes of calculating customs duty payable to... More
This is an appeal against the decision of the Labour Court dismissing with costs an appeal noted against an arbitral award ordering the appellant to pay to the respondent wages and benefits for the period 1 April 2014 to 31 August 2014. More
This composite application for condonation and extension of time for leave to appeal and leave to appeal raises an interesting question. It is whether an applicant who seeks and is denied condonation for the late filing of an application for leave to appeal in a lower court and therefore fails to make the actual application for such leave in that court, can procedurally seek leave to appeal from a judge of this Court in chambers. More
This is an application that is headed “Chamber Application for Condonation of Late Filing of Application for Leave to Appeal in terms of Rule 61 of the Supreme Court of Zimbabwe Rules 2018.” More
This is an application for direct access to the Court made in terms of s 167(5) of the Constitution as read with r 21 of the Constitutional Court Rules, 2016(“the Rules”).
[2] The applicants intend to approach the Court in terms of s 85(1) of the Constitution, seeking an order that the fundamental right of every person to form and join trade unions and employer-employee organisations of their choice and to participate in the lawful activities of those organisations, enshrined in s 65(2) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe, 2013, has been and is being infringed by employers in respect of... More
This is an appeal against the whole judgment of the High Court sitting at Harare dated 24 February 2017 in which the court a quo granted an interim interdict sought by the first respondent on behalf of the third respondent. More
Before the attachment, the appellant had on 11 May 2023 filed an urgent chamber application in HC3131/23 for leave to appeal against the judgment granting leave to execute. Thereafter the parties found each other and signed an agreement in terms of which the appellant agreed to withdraw its urgent chamber application for leave to appeal.
On 15 May 2023 the appellant instructed RBZ, that is the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe, to pay the respondent a sum of US$679 103.98. On 25 May 2023 it then instructed the RBZ to pay a further US$1 500 000.00 to the respondent.
It is... More
The applicant has now approached the Court with an application for condonation of the departure from the Rules in terms of rule 5(1) (a) of the Constitutional Court Rules, 2016 (“the Rules”). In addition, the applicant seeks authorization of the issuance of a certificate of service in respect of the service of the application under CCZ 3/24 upon the Attorney General, that the Registrar rejected. More
The appellant opposed the application, arguing that Article 11(4) of the UNCITRAL Model Law empowers the High Court to appoint an arbitrator of its own accord. The contention was that the High Court had no power to delegate the authority to appoint an arbitrator to another body, such as the Commercial Arbitration Centre. The appellant also argued that the dispute over the appropriate rental for the property was governed by the Commercial Premises (Rent) Regulations, Statutory Instrument No. 176 of 1983 (the Rent Regulations”) and as such should be determined by the Commercial Rent Board. The appellant further argued that... More
At the end of the hearing of this matter the following order was issued:
“IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1st Applicant takes all the necessary steps to ensure that its officers and officers under the command of the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Respondents, authorised to cast ballots in terms of section 81 of the Electoral Act [Cap 2:13] who failed to cast their ballots on the 14th and 15th of July 2013 because of the unavailability of ballot papers, be and are hereby allowed to cast their ballots on the 31st of July 2013.” More
This matter purports to be an application in terms s 167(2)(d) as read with s 85 of the Constitution and as further read with r 27 of the Constitutional Court Rules, 2016. In essence, the application involves a challenge to the validity of the Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (No. 2) Act of 2021 (“the Amendment No. 2 Act”). More
