This is an appeal by the Appellant against the decision of the Respondent’s Managing Director dismissing the Appellant from employment. On the date of hearing parties agreed that the matter be decided based on the submissions filed of record. To that extent no oral submissions were made by the parties hence this judgment is based on what is contained in the record of proceedings before it only. More
Appellant employed the respondent as a domestic worker. Following disagreements at the workplace, respondent reported her matter to the union officers culminating in the matter being referred to arbitration. The Arbitrator found in favour of respondent. Appellant was not satisfied with the decision and has appealed to this Court. Appellant’s main contention are, firstly, that the Arbitrator erred in finding that appellant had unlawfully dismissed the respondent. Secondly, that the Arbitrator erred in finding that the appellant had not granted respondent vacation leave during the period that respondent had worked for her. More
The accused was arraigned before the magistrate at Kadoma on a charge of culpable homicide as defined in s 49 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act, [Cap 9:23]it being alleged that on 21 June 2010 at Rimaunga Estate, Macheke, the appellant unlawfully caused the death of ChristopherRice either negligently failing to realise that the death might result from his conduct or, despite realising that death might result from his conduct, negligently failed to guard against that possibility. He initially pleaded guilty but his plea was later changed to one of not guilty. He was then convicted after a... More
The parties to these divorce proceedings are agreed on virtually all issues relating thereto save for the distribution of two sets of movable items namely two snooker tables (also referred to as pool tables). Whereas the defendant insists that these two items are ineligible for distribution, the defendant contends to contramise.
The plaintiff’s position n with regards to the motor vehicle, which is an Audi motor vehicle registration number AEA 3952 is that he purchased it using the proceeds of a minatory dolicitim he received from a certain benefactor. On that basis he claims that the said motor vehicle is... More
The plaintiff is a duly registered company trading under the name Borrowdale Motor Sales. As the trade name suggests, it, the plaintiff, trades in motor vehicles. On 6 June 2006 the plaintiff entered into an agreement with the defendant, in terms of which the plaintiff agreed to purchase a vehicle owned by the defendant, to wit a Ford Taurus registration number 720 532L. A copy of the agreement which is attached as Annexure A to the summons reveals that the purchase price of the vehicle was $ 700 000.00 (revalued) payable as to a deposit of $ 300 000 and... More
The plaintiff (applicant) issued summons against the defendants claiming payment of $101 000 being the outstanding amount on an agreement of sale for a 25tonne Volvo Conquip excavator EC250D 25L and two Powerstar VX tipper trucks, interest thereon at the prescribed rate from date of summons to date of payment in full, collection commission and legal practitioner and client costs. More
The first respondent is the holder of an offer letter for subdivision 6 of Braemar Farm in Seke District (the farm) under the jurisdiction of the Manyame Rural District Council. The farm was allocated to him on 17 November, 2009 and is 122,540 ha in extent. The farm had been gazetted on 3 September 2004 in the Government Gazette Extraordinary Vol. LXXXII, No. 72. The acquisition of the farm by government is still extant. On 10 May 2022, the first respondent filed an urgent chamber application for a spoliation order against the appellant. The first respondent alleged that on 5... More
The actions of an Anglican Church priest David Dhlomo the first defendant, in selling his deceased mother’s house to second and third defendants without the knowledge of his siblings have resulted in the plaintiff (his sibling) dragging both the man of the cloth and the purchasers to court. The transaction has resulted in far reaching consequences for the parties factually, legally and financially. More
MAKONESE J: This is an application for review instituted in terms of Rule 62 of the High Court Rules, 2021. The applicant is a mining syndicate with mining rights over a mining location known as Fundisi ‘H’ Mining Block. More
Applicants seek an order interdicting the first respondent from proceeding with a disciplinary inquiry set down for tomorrow 1 June 2010. There is no specific relief sought against the other respondents. More
This is an appeal against the decision of Honourable Arbitrator D. Mudzengi issued on 19 March 2013. The arbitrator ordered that Respondents be reinstated without loss of pay and benefits from the date of the unlawful dismissal. If reinstatement is no longer an option, the parties were to negotiate damages to be paid in lieu of reinstatement within fourteen (14) days of receipt of the award. If parties fail to agree, either party may refer the matter to the arbitrator for quantification. More
On 13 April 2021, the parties argued an application for a joinder before me, and I reserved judgment. The applicant seeks to be joined as a respondent in the matter under HC 3727/20, where the first respondent is seeking an order compelling the second respondent to transfer, namely, 2418, 2442 and 1712 of Lot 2 of Clipsham situated in Masvingo. The application was made in terms of Order 13, Rule 87 (2) of the High Court Rules, 1971 (“the old Rules”). More
The head case of Rogers v Rogers 2008 (1) ZLR 330 (S) lays out when the court will exercise its power in terms of r 79 (2) of the High Court Rules, 1971 to stop an action which is frivolous and vexatious. The remedy will be granted sparingly as it is an extraordinary one whose effect is to interfere with the right of access to court. More
The two respondents in this application are the biological parents of the applicant who is an adult and is self-supporting and living independently of the respondents. The parents appeared before this court in case number HC 5592/22 which was determined by CHIRAWU-MUGOMBA J on 21 October 2022. In that matter the respondents herein were the applicants and the applicant the respondent. In case number HC 5592/22 the respondents herein sought a declaration conjoined with an interdict against the applicant. The dispute concerned the rights of occupation and control of a farm called Subdivision Z of Lot 1 of Marivale situated... More
The plaintiffs instituted action in this matter essentially challenging the appointment of first defendant’s appointment as Chief Chiwara on the basis that his appointment as Chief on 6 December 2013 was premised on incorrect information. They also allege that the appointment was wrongful as per the law and practice and principles of succession of the Karanga clan. More
