The applicants intend to appeal against an arbitral award, which award was issued on the 23rd September, 2013. This application for condonation was filed in this Court on the 2nd May, 2014. This is a delay of 7 months. More
This application for review was filed on 30 September 2013. The grounds for review are;
1. In hearing and determining the matter before her, the Honourable Arbitrator demonstrated that she was motivated by malice.
2. There was gross irregularity in the proceedings, more particularly in that the Arbitrator invoked the wrong Statutory Instrument.
3. There was violation of the rules of natural justice, more particularly the audi alteram parten. More
The appellant was convicted of indecent assault as defined in s 67 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act, [Chapter 9:23], that he perpetrated on his sister-in-law. The facts upon which the conviction was based on can be summarized as follows:
Complainant was coming from a borehole where she had gone to fetch water. She met the appellant who asked her to wait for her. Considering such a request coming from a brother-in-law inappropriate, she ignored him and went on. He caught up with her, grabbed her by the hand and then fondled her breasts without her consent and... More
This was an urgent chamber application for a stay of execution pending the determination of an application for rescission of judgment. The first respondent took a point in limine that the matter was not urgent. I reserved judgment on that and directed argument on the merits. Towards the end of submissions it seemed the matter could be amicably resolved by treading the middle path. By consent I could order a stay provided the applicant paid security in terms of Order 32 r 246[3]. More
This was an urgent chamber application for a stay of execution pending the determination of an application for rescission of judgment. The first respondent took a point in limine that the matter was not urgent. I reserved judgment on that and directed argument on the merits. Towards the end of submissions it seemed the matter could be amicably resolved by treading the middle path. By consent I could order a stay provided the applicant paid security in terms of Order 32 r 246[3]. It reads: More
This is an appeal against conviction and sentence on a charge of robbery as defined in s 126 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23]. The appellant was sentenced to nine years imprisonment of which two years imprisonment was suspended for five years on condition that during that period the appellant does not commit any offence that has violence on the person of another or dishonesty as an element and for which he is sentenced to imprisonment without the option of a fine. A further two years imprisonment was suspended on condition that the appellant restituted the... More
Panganai constructed a rabbit cage and placed it on a window. Appellant was opposed to this idea .On 7th November 2021 following the two men’s opposed views on the setting up of a rabbit cage an incident took place. Only the two men were present. After that incident Panganai made a report to the School Head, Mrs Chisipochinyi. His report as related to Mrs Chisipochinyi is as follows. On 7th November 2021 Panganai called Mrs Chisipochinyi and told her that Bvudzijena had struck him on the head and neck using an iron bar. Mrs Chisipochinyi in turn advised Panganai to... More
This is an application for an order of specific performance. The applicant claimed that in February 2001 he had bought the first respondent’s rights, title and interest in the property known as Stand 2851/9 Mutobwe Street, Masvingo[hereafter referred to as the property] for the sum of ZW$250 000-00 which he claimed to have paid in full. The applicant had obtained vacant occupation of the property immediately afterwards. He was still in occupation 12 years later when the matter came up for determination. It being the second respondent’s property, the actual relief sought by the applicant was an order directing the... More
Applicant is employed by as a clerk at Dzivaresekwa 5 Primary School. He was charged with misconduct after it was alleged that he had been involved in what was termed ‘unbecoming and indecorous behaviour’ at the school. He was brought before a Disciplinary Committee which found him guilty. More
Applicant was arraigned before the Magistrates Court sitting at Beitbridge on a charge of fraud as defined in section 136 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act (Chap 9:23). Applicant pleaded not guilty to the charge and was duly convicted at the end of a full trial. Applicant was sentenced to 60 months imprisonment with 36 months suspended on the usual condition of future good conduct. A further 4 months were suspended on condition of restitution. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, applicant lodged an appeal with this court. This is an application for bail pending appeal. The application... More
This is a chamber application in terms of s 167(5) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (No. 20) Act 2013) (“the Constitution”), as read with r 21(2) of the Constitutional Court Rules SI 21/2016 (“the Rules”), for an order for leave for direct access to the Constitutional Court (“the Court”). More
This is an application for leave to appeal in terms of r 60 of the Supreme Court Rules 2018. The applicant was denied leave to appeal by the Labour Court on 3 July 2020. Aggrieved by the denial for leave he has applied to this Court. More
This is an appeal against the whole judgment of the Labour Court sitting at Bulawayo handed down on 19 September 2011 in case number LC/MT/28/10. Leave to appeal and condonation of late noting of appeal as well as extension of time within which to note an appeal were granted by this Court on 26 February 2016. More
This is an appeal against both conviction and penalty. The appellant was charged in terms of section 4 paragraph (a) of the model code of conduct Statutory Instrument 15 of 2006 which reads;
“4(a) any act of conduct or omission inconsistent with the fulfillment of the express or implied condition of his/her contract”. More
In this appeal the respondent raised a point in limine to the effect that ground of appeal No 1 was not a ground of appeal but one of review. The grounds read-
1. The Hearing Authority erred procedurally in inviting the parties to file closing submissions immediately after the closure of the Complainant’s case without putting the Appellant to his defence and allowing him to be cross- examined.
2. The Hearing Authority erred at law in retaining a verdict of guilty in the absence of evidence on a balance of probabilities to that effect seeing as:
2.1 There were clear... More
