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
Chikwavadombo Mastick Marange [“Chikwavadombo”] died on 8 September 2005. He was the substantive Chief Marange. Two persons acted in his place and stead, each in turn, after his death. These were one Ringisai Noah Marange and one Gilbert Marange. The first respondent eventually succeeded him as Chief Marange. More
The matter was placed before me as an application for condonation of late noting of appeal. Respondent took a point in limine to the effect that the application was no longer valid in view of a settlement agreement reached between the parties. The court upheld the point in limine and dismissed the application. It was indicated that the reasons for the decision would follow. More
This is an application for rescission of judgment in terms of Rule 449. The respondents raised points in limine one of which concerns the founding affidavit. That the founding affidavit is not properly commissioned and that therefore there is no affidavit before this court.
A look at the founding affidavit shows that at page 12 of the bound record of proceedings there is a paragraph 22 to the founding affidavit which is the last paragraph and the prayer as well as the applicant’s details. That page is not signed nor is it commissioned. There is, however a page 13 to... More
Defendant took a special plea and exception to intercept plaintiff`s suit for a declaratur, pleaded alternatively with contractual damages claim. The backdrop to the dispute is as follows; -plaintiff is an information technology consultant based in the Republic of South Africa. He appointed defendant, a firm of estate agents, to sell his immovable property situate in Harare and remit the sale proceeds cross-border to his base in South Africa.
[2] The property was indeed sold at a price of USD$190,000; but the funds were not transferred as per plaintiff`s instructions. Unresolved disagreements over this issue saw plaintiff issuing summons in... More
This is an appeal against the judgment of the Magistrates’ Court sitting at Chinhoyi, handed down on 3 May 2021. The judgment granted the respondent(then applicant) an interdict prohibiting the applicant (then respondent) from allocating or selling stand number 996 Kuwadzana Township, Banket, to any person as it was registered in the name of the late Enock Dandajena. More
This application was brought to me on an urgent basis. The applicant seeks the following relief:
“TERMS OF FINAL ORDER SOUGHT
That you show cause to this Honourable Court why a final order should not be made in the following terms:
1. That all title deeds processed by 1st respondent through the invalid certificate of compliance be declared invalid.
2. That the 2nd respondent be and are (sic) hereby directed to cancel all title deeds processed in terms of the invalid certificate of compliance.
3. 1st and 2nd respondent shall pay costs of suit on legal practitioner clients scale. More
On 31 October 2018, in Case No. HC 6622/17, the High Court granted the main claim sought by the respondent less the agreed amount against its claim to the appellant, and dismissed the appellant’s counterclaim. In this appeal, the appellant seeks a reversal of that order and its substitution by the relief embodied in the counterclaim. More
This is an application for leave to execute a judgment of this court pending the hearing of an appeal before the Supreme Court. The application has been filed under a certificate of urgency. The application is opposed by the applicant.
Brief background.
On 21 March 2019, the Honourable MOYO J, handed down judgment under case number HB-37-19. In that matter the learned judge confirmed a provisional order granted on 14 June 2018. It was the view of the court that the notice of opposition and opposing affidavit were not properly before the court. Further the deponent to the opposing affidavit... More
The appellant was on his own plea of guilty, convicted by the magistrate sitting at Chinhoyi, of stock theft as defined in s 114(2) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act, [Cap 9:23]. The court made a finding that there were special circumstances in the matter and sentenced the appellant to 4 years imprisonment of which 1 year imprisonment was conditionally suspended. More
This is an appeal against the decision of the Appeals Committee dated 5 March 2019. The Appellant was found guilty of breaching Section E11 Category 5 offence number 2 i.e. “any conduct or omission inconsistent with the fulfilment, the express or implied conditions of his/her employment”. He was found guilty and dismissed from employment. More
