: On the 4th of June 2021, I gave an order ex tempore as follows.
1. The application be and is hereby granted.
2. The respondent and all those claiming occupation through him be and is hereby ordered to vacate the property called Lot 2736 Core House Turf, Ngezi within seven (7) days of the date of being served with the order.
3. In the event that the respondent fails or refuses to vacate as aforesaid, the Sheriff or his lawful Deputy be and is hereby empowered to evict the respondent and those claiming title through him from Lot 2736... More
The applicant seeks an order for the eviction of the respondent and all those claiming occupation through him from a property known as number 24200 Umvovo, Chegutu ‘the property’. More
: The applicant Zimbabwe Platinum Mines (Pvt) Ltd (Zimplats) is suing the Zimbabwe Revenue Authority, the first respondent (ZIMRA) which is the tax collecting agent of the Government of Zimbabwe (the Government) and the second respondent, the Commissioner-General of the first respondent (the Commissioner-General) who is conferred with the powers of supervising and managing the first respondent’s staff, activities, funds and property. The first respondent’s activities which are managed and supervised by the second respondent include the functions of collecting duties and paying refunds under the Customs and Excise Act [Chapter 23:02]. More
This is an application for a declaratory order. It is vigorously contested. The applicant is an expansive mining concern and a taxpayer. It is in dispute with the respondents over the correct method of computing its income tax liabilities. The dispute arises partly on account of the fact that the applicant’s income and expenditure are predominantly in foreign currency and only marginally in local currency. The parties differ on their interpretation of the law regarding the correct method of deductions from revenue of the expenditure incurred in foreign currency, and the deduction from revenue of the expenditure incurred in local... More
This is an appeal against the whole judgment of the Labour Court (the court a quo) wherein it upheld the respondent’s appeal and set aside the decision of the designated agent who found that the termination of the respondent’s employment by the appellant was lawful. More
The applicant sought an order evicting the respondent and all those claiming occupation through him from House No. 15 Baines Road, Victoria Falls (the property). It also sought an order for costs. More
The first respondent instituted summons action against the present applicant and the second respondent in this court seeking an order for damages in the total sum of US$65 000-00 arising out of a motor vehicle accident which occurred at the 203 km peg along the Harare-Mutare road on 15 November 2009. In that collision, the first respondent’s Toyota Hiace Commuter Omnibus was extensively damaged, after it collided with a Toyota Diana minibus driven by the second respondent, and caught fire. More
This is an application for execution pending appeal.
On 9 July 2013 I granted the following order:-
“1. Execution of the judgment in case number HC 2583/10 pending appeal be and
is hereby granted.
2. Respondent shall pay the costs of suit on a Legal Practitioner and client scale”. More
This application is redolent with irregularities. This, understandably, constrained the respondent to raise a number of points in limine praying for its dismissal.
The irregularities complained of, which were not fully conceded by the applicant, are these:
1. the application does not comply with R 227(3) in that when it was filed, it did not contain a draft of the order sought; More
The Applicant is Zimbabwe Power Company a registered company in terms of the laws of this country. The Respondents are employees of the Applicant employed in various capacities, and based at Kariba where they occupied houses belonging to the Appellant. They are in these proceedings represented by the Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions.
It is common cause that the Respondents were in 2001 offered the right to purchase from the Appellant (who was previously known as Zimbabwe Electricity Supply Authority) the houses which they were occupying. More
The applicant through its Business Performance Manager, one Bernard Chizengeya, filed the present application for rescission of the order granted under case HC 4169/20 dated 21 October 2020. The present application is filed in terms of rule 449 (1) (a) of the High Court Rules, 1971 (“the old Rules”). What had happened is that, sometime in August 2020, the first respondent petitioned this court on an urgent basis under HC 4169/20 for an interdict. He sought an interim order in two parts, firstly, authorizing him to resume his mining and allied operations at Special Grants 7667, 7668, and 7669. Secondly,... More
This is an application in terms of Article 34(2) (b)(ii) of the Arbitration Act [Chapter 7:15] [the Act] for the setting aside of part of the arbitral award handed down by the 2nd Respondent (Justice N.T. Mtshiya (Rtd)) on 27 May 2022. The application is founded on the allegation that the arbitral award conflicts with Zimbabwe’s public policy. More
On 8 February 2017 the plaintiff issued summons against the defendant claiming the sum of $20 133.46 arising from the sale of books by the defendant on behalf of the plaintiff, the proceeds of which the defendant failed to remit. The plaintiff also claimed interest on that sum at the prescribed rate plus costs of suit.
The background facts as outlined by the plaintiff are these. Sometime in 2009 the parties entered into an agreement in terms of which the defendant would receive books from the plaintiff and sell them on its behalf for a commission of 30% of the... More
This is an appeal against the decision filed in terms of section 128 (1) of the Labour Act, (Chapter 28:01) as amended by Act 11 of 2023. The sole ground of appeal is couched as follows:
“The Labour Officer erred in allowing claims for outstanding salaries for the 2nd Respondent on the strength of a bank statement which had some pages missing. In any event, the bank statement attached showed that 2nd Respondent was owed only $ 1 200- 00.” More
This is an appeal against an order by an arbitrator. The arbitrator ordered that the respondent be reinstated without loss of salary and benefits.
The background to the case is largely common cause. The respondent was employed as a revenue specialist by the appellant. Following alleged misconduct, the respondent together with three other employees were suspended from employment pending investigations. He together with the other employee’s were subsequently charged in terms of the appellant’s Code of Conduct. It was alleged that the employees including the respondent valued motor vehicles without authority and that he used an incorrect procedure in valuing... More
