This is an application for leave to appeal against the decision of this Court that was handed down on 5 June 2020. This Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision of the appeals officer to dismiss him from work for engaging in fraud and or theft in the course of his employment.
The applicant’s grounds for this application are that
(i) This court did not canvass the essential elements oftheft or fraud.
(ii) There are prospects of success as there was circumstantial evidence.
The Respondent in responseargued that the essential elements of theft/fraud had been proved through the evidence... More
This is an appeal against the decision of the designated appeals officer D. Murindagomo that was issued on 5 May 2019. This appeal was noted in accordance with the Supreme Court order dated 3 October 2019 in Case No. 865/18. More
1. This is an application for quantification of damages in lieu of reinstatement. It follows after a successful appeal to the Supreme Court which court ordered the reinstatement of the applicant failing which reinstatement, payment of damages. More
The defendant acting through its insurance broker BGI Financial Services (Private) Limited entered into agreement with the plaintiff the terms of which were that the plaintiff would repair vehicles belonging to the aforementioned insurance company’s insured clients at an agreed cost which the defendant would pay. During the period May 2014 to August 2015 the defendant through the said insurance broker referred its various clients to plaintiff for motor vehicle repairs which repairs were effected by the plaintiff. The plaintiff claims through its director Mr Allen Jones that the outstanding costs for such repairs amounted to the sum of USD12... More
This is a matter in which the plaintiff issued summons against the defendant and claimed various amounts itemised in its declaration as follows:
‘(i) 24 714,77 being unpaid money for the construction of a new deli stores area.
(ii) $16 979,42 being unpaid money for the supply and installation of a full fire scope
system
(iii) $17 801,42 being unpaid retention fee for electrical works
(iv) Interest at the prescribed rate on the claims in (i), (ii), (iii) above from 31st
July, 2014.
(v) Costs of suit on a legal practitioner and client scale. More
At the close of this trial Counsel indicated that they preferred filing written closing submissions. I then directed counsel for the defendant to file his written closing submissions by 17 September 2007. As I write this judgment it is now the 3rd of October 2007 with no submissions having been filed by counsel in spite of a written reminder from his opponent dated 1 October 2007. There has also been no explanation for the default. In the absence of an explanation for the default, I can only assume that counsel for the Defendant has no meaningful submissions to make. Having... More
The applicants seek the grant of interim relief in the form of a provisional order staying execution of a writ issued against them pending the determination of an application for rescission of judgment. This follows a default judgment granted under HC 6363/11 in which matter the first respondent sued the applicants for payment of the sum of US$5000 000-00. More
On 6 June 2014 this Court dismissed Applicant’s application for interim relief filed in terms of section 92E (3) of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01]. Applicant seeks to approach the Supreme Court. This is therefore an application in terms of section 92F (1) of the Act. More
On 17 August 2011 I entered default judgment against the applicants in favour of the respondent in the following terms:
“IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1. The defendant’s plea be and is hereby struck out.
2. The first, second and fourth defendants shall, jointly and severally, the one paying the other to be absolved, pay to the plaintiff the following amounts:
2.1 US$14 816- 64 at the rate of 5% per annum from 1 February 2011 to date of payment.
2.2 The plaintiff’s costs of suit on the legal practitioner and client scale.” More
The plaintiff herein claims the sum of US$61,944.81 being money which the plaintiff expected to be allocated to it by the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe (RBZ) in terms of a tobacco growers retention scheme. The plaintiff avers that the defendant negligently failed to submit the plaintiff’s application and that, as a result of that negligence, the plaintiff failed to receive its retention money. The defendant disputes any negligence or contractual obligation on its part and denies liability. In the alternative, it is pleaded that any damages proved by the plaintiff should be abated on the ground of its contributory negligence. More
This is an application for bail pending trial. The application was filed on 25th January 2021. I then advised the parties of my intention to dispose of the matter on the papers. To that end I invited them to file heads of argument, if they were so inclined, by 27th January 2021. Counsel for the applicants filed heads of argument on the 28th January and none were filed by the respondent. More
This is an appeal against the decision of the respondent’s disciplinary authority which confirmed appellant’s guilt and dismissed him from work following allegations of fondling a pupil’s breast in contravention of the respondent’s regulations.
The appeal is based mainly on 3 points. These are that, the respondent authority found appellant guilty on insufficient evidence, failed to determine an interim application for recusal which had been made before the committee and that if appellant’s guilt was well founded he was entitled to a penalty lesser than dismissal. More
Rule 348 A of the High Court rues deals with stopping the sale of a dwelling house to facilitate the settlement of a claim. Applicant brought an application under r 348 A (5a) for the postponement or suspension of the sale of the dwelling concerned; or the eviction of its occupants. More
This is an urgent application in which the provisional order sought the placement of a caveat on property described as a certain 4357 square meters of land called stand 17005 Harare Township of Stand 16969 Harare Township situate in the District of Salisbury held under Deed f Transfer No 02319/95. More
This matter came before me on a certificate of urgency issued in terms of r244 of the High Court of Zimbabwe Rules, 1971. The applicant seeks the following relief;-
“Terms of the Final Order sought
1. That the warrant of detention issued by the first respondent authorising the second respondent to detain applicant on 4 July 2012 be and is hereby cancelled.
2. The first respondent is ordered to determine the applicant’s request for extension of his Visa to stay in Zimbabwe within five days of this Order.
3. Should the application for extension of Visa be turned down, the... More
