On 17 December 2018 the applicant filed an urgent chamber application seeking the following relief.
TERMS OF THE ITERINM RELIED SOUGHT
It is hereby ordered that pending the determination by this honourable court of the issues referred herein above:
1. The respondent shall allow the persons listed in the document attached to the application as “”Annexure C” who were evicted from Lot 1 of subdivision A of Somerby, Harare on 14 December 2018, to return to peaceful occupation of the land forthwith, pending the issuing of a final order in this matter;
2. The respondent, its agents, its employees and... More
MAKONI JA: This is an appeal against the whole judgment of the High Court, handed down on 24 January 2018, wherein it dismissed the appellants’ claim.
BACKGROUND FACTS
The first appellant is a private voluntary Trust established in terms of the laws of Zimbabwe. The second appellant is Mukonotronics (Private) Limited a corporate body registered in terms of the laws of Zimbabwe. The respondent is Karpeg Investments (Private) Limited a Zimbabwean corporate body trading under the name Kadir and Sons. More
The 1st to the 56th Respondents who are applicant employees brought a claim for alleged non-payment of outstanding salaries and the dispute was referred for adjudication in terms of section 63 of the Labour Act [chapter 28:01] (the Act). The designated agent made a determination on 20 November 2023. The applicant was dissatisfied with the determination and filed this application for review alleging procedural unfairness and bias. More
This is an application made in terms of Article 34 of the Model Law in the Arbitration Act [Cap 7:15] for the setting aside setting of an arbitral award made by the second respondent on February 2012 sitting as an arbitrator to resolve a rent dispute involving the applicant and the 1st respondent. More
The applicants and the first respondent are embroiled in a labour dispute. The dispute centres on the manner and procedure which the first respondent employed when it terminated the services of the applicants. These were terminated in July, 2013. More
This applicant, having previously been denied bail pending trial, submitted this further application which he named ‘bail application for bail based on changed circumstances in terms of r 5 of the high court rules 1991 as read with s 116(c) (ii) of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act [Chapter 9:07]’. Having perused the Act, I am satisfied that the nomenclature does not emanate from proviso (ii) of s 116 of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act. The phrase changed circumstances may have been used in practice and case law in discussing the circumstances under which a fresh bid for bail... More
This is an application for condonation of late filing of an appeal.
The applicant is a former employee of the respondent. He was employed as a parking marshal at the relevant time when he incurred a $2.00 shortfall on the 6th of October 2014 in remitting his collections for the day. More
1. This urgent application was placed before me on the 13 May 2022. After considering it, I ruled that the matter was not urgent and I removed it from the roll of urgent matters. On the 19 May 2022, applicants addressed a letter to the Registrar of this court asking to be furnished with reasons for my ruling. Applicants’ letter was brought to my attention on the 27 May 2022. These are the reasons. More
The applicant arraigned before the Magistrates Court facing a charge of Rape as defined in s 65 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23]. The facts forming the basis of the charge are that between May and June 2019 the applicant was staying with his two juvenile daughters the complainant aged 10 and the other younger one aged 5. The applicant carried the complainant to his bed and after exposing his manhood he inserted his male organ into the complainant’s private parts knowing or realising that there was a real risk or possibility that the complainant was... More
The appellant submitted that the Appeals Committee had erred in not finalising the matter within thirty (30) calendar days in terms of the Code. It was further stated on behalf of the Appellate that the charge of theft was not proved as the guest in question had not been called to testify. The appellant further submitted that the penalty of dismissal was too harsh in the circumstances. More
The appellant as accused No. 5 appeared before the provincial magistrate with four alleged accomplices on 30 October, 2020 facing a charge of robbery as defined in s 126 of the Criminal Law (Codification & Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23]. The quintet was placed on remand following which they applied for bail pending trial which was denied by the said provincial magistrate. The appellant filed an appeal against the provincial magistrate’s decision to deny him bail on 13 January 2021. On 15 January 2021, the appeal was set down before FOROMA J whom postponed the matter to 19 January 2020 at... More
Compliance with court orders by some government officials acting in their official capacity is often problematic. This is despite the constitutional provision that obligates all citizens and state entities to observe the rule of law. This case is a clear example of reluctance to comply with a court order. This application is premised on the allegations that the first respondent defied an extant order of this court necessitating filing of the application for contempt of court in terms of r79 (1) of the High Court Rules, 2021. More
Applicant approached this court for a declaratory order and consequential relief. The application was filed on 31 August 2022. Applicant filed all her pleadings with the heads of argument being filed on 13 January 2023 and served on the respondent’s legal practitioners on 16 January 2023. No heads of argument were filed by the respondent. This application was set down for hearing on 26 May 2023. At the commencement of the hearing, respondent’s counsel made the submission that he had not filed respondent’s heads of argument, as such respondent was barred. He then advised the Court that in terms of... More
This is an application for stay of execution brought under a certificate of urgency. The draft order is in the following terms:
“Interim relief sought
1. The 3rd and 4th respondents be and are hereby ordered to stay the sale in execution in matter number HC 1774/15 which is scheduled for the 19th November 2021 pending the return date. More
MAKONESE J: In terms of our law, and in accordance with the provisions of section 25 of the Administration of Estates Act (Chapter6:01), a deceased estate is represented by an executor or executrix duly appointed and issued with letters of administration by the Master. An executor accepts the position of legal representative of the deceased with all the rights and obligations attached to that position. It follows that because the deceased estate is vested in the executor, he is the only person who has locus standi to bring any action relative to property belonging to the deceased estate. Any person... More
