This is an application purportedly made for the guardianship of a minor child in terms of the Guardianship of Minors Act (Chapter 5:08). The order sought by the applicant is couched in the following terms:
“1. Applicant be and is hereby granted custody of the minor child, namely Zoleka Mhlanga (a minor born on 9th June 2004)
2. That 1st respondent be granted access to the minor child, every alternative school holiday.”
The application is opposed. The 1st respondent has raised certain preliminary issues which are dispositve of the mater. I shall consider these issues in turn. More
This is an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against the judgment of this court that was handed down on 12 June 2015. This court dismissed the appeal against the arbitral award by Honourable N Mukwehwa that was handed down on 31 December 2012. More
On 4 February 2020 the appellant was arraigned for raping a mentally incompetent person before the Regional Magistrate at Mutare. The state alleged that appellant and complainant are neighbours at Nyamukwarara Village, Chief Mutasa, Penhalonga.
On a date and time unknown to the state but during the period extending from January to August 2019 complainant was left alone at home by her mother whilst the latter went out to look for piece work. Complainant is mentally challenged and a cripple.
The appellant approached complainant during the absence of her mother from home, grabbed and dragged her into a nearby maize... More
This is an application for condonation for late filing of an application for review for review of a Labour officer’s draft ruling. The Labour officer’s draft is in terms of Section 93 (5a) (c) of the Labour Act, Chapter 28:01 (the Act)
The second respondent raised a couple of points in limine to the application. The application was made before the Constitutional Court passed its decision in the case Isoquant Investiments (Pvt) Ltd t/Zimoco vs Memory Darikwa. CCZ 6/20. More
This is an application for bail pending trial. The applicant and five co-accused persons are facing 6 counts of armed robbery and contravening of section 126 of the Criminal Law Codification an Reform Act (Chapter 9:23). Applicant denies the allegations and avers that he has been wrongly implicated in this matter. The application for bail is opposed by the state. More
The applicant is the owner of a property called Shop No. 1, 32 Julius Nyerere Way, Harare. It leased the property to the respondent by written lease agreement executed on 17 January 2018 due for termination on 31 March 2018. Upon the expiry of the lease agreement, the applicant sought the eviction of the respondent and an order to confirm the cancellation of the agreement. The applicant also pleaded that it required the leased premises for its own use. More
The appellant and the respondent were landlord and tenant by virtue of a written lease agreement over a fixed property called stand 7449A (also called Shop No. 1, 32 Julius Nyerere Way, Harare. The lease agreement was executed on 17 January 2018. The agreement was due to terminate on 31 March 2018. The appellant instituted proceedings against the respondent in the court a quo in which it prayed for an order to confirm the termination of the lease agreement, ejectment of the respondent from the leased premises and costs of suit. The appellant based its case for the relief sought... More
The appellants have approached this court seeking the setting aside of the court a quo’s decision. The court a quo granted an order interdicting the first appellant from engaging in business that violates the standards expected in a residential area and ordering the first and second appellants to cease forthwith committing acts of nuisance at number 75 Kennedy Drive, Greendale, Harare or performing acts that disturbs and infringe on public peace . More
This is an appeal against the employer’s decision to dismiss the appellant from employment. The brief history of this matter is that the appellant was employed by the respondent as a Truck Driver Grade B4 of the Transport industry CBA S I 67/2012. He was invited to answer charges of proven theft offence section 5:1 of S I 67/2012. When the hearing was conducted he was convicted of gross negligent driving. More
Plaintiff is suing the defendant for the recovery of US$7 541.41 which he alleges is made up of (a) a consultancy fee in the amount of US$2 500.00; (b) commission and (c) telephone bills arising from a verbal agreement which it states it entered into with the defendant company. The terms of the agreement as alleged by the plaintiff,were that the plaintiff would be paid a consultancy fee in the amount of US$3 125.00 and commission calculated at 10% for helping the defendant to set up and run a panel beating; sales and engineering shop at No. 14 Martin Drive,... More
This is an appeal against the discharge of the Appellant from the Civil Service following conviction for misconduct. The Appellant was employed at Belvedere Teachers’ College as a lecturer. More
This is an application for a stay of execution pending interpleader proceedings and possibly a rescission of judgment application. No interpleader proceedings have been commenced presumably because the claimant has not even brought the said claim to the attention of the deputy sheriff. More
The appeal is noted against the arbitral award dated 27/01/2012 directing Respondent to pay Appellant and 7 others one month salary as cash in lieu of notice.
The background facts to the matter are as follows;
The Appellant were employed by the Respondent on contracts from 18th of October, 2010. The terms and conditions of the contracts is the subject of dispute between the parties. The Appellants submit that they were on contracts without fixed duration and therefore the contracts could not be terminated on notice. In the alternative Appellants submit that even if they were on fixed term contracts... More
This is an application for condonation of late filing of an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against this Court’s judgment of the 6th May, 2011. More
At the hearing of this matter I upheld the appeal with costs. The following are the reasons for that decision:
1. The sole issue before this court is whether or not the National Employment Council for the Welfare and Educational institutions Appeals Committee (“NECWEl Appeals Committee’) was correct to interfere with the penalty of dismissal imposed on the respondent by the Disciplinary Committee.
2. It is trite that an appeal court will not interfere with the exercise of discretion unless such exercise has been afflicted by a serious misdirection.
3. It has not been proved in this case that the... More
