The plaintiff is a common law universitas involved in charitable activities. It is a former employer of the defendant. The employment relationship endured for some time, until it was severed by the resignation of the defendant from her position as director. The severance of the relationship was not as pleasant as its espousal. More
On 31 December, 2021 one Joshua John Chirambwe (“chirambwe”), the first respondent herein, sued the Law Society of Zimbabwe which is the third respondent in casu, among other two respondents, seeking a declaratur and consequential relief. He filed his suit under HC 7421/21 (“the main matter”). He is a legal practitioner by profession and he is therefore a member of the third respondent herein. More
This is an application for review of a retrenchment package approved by the Minister of Labour and Social Services (“the Minister”) on 24 June 2015. The Minister approved the respondents’ retrenchment as follows: More
KUDYA AJA: This is a chamber application for condonation of the late filing of an appeal and extension of time within which to appeal launched in terms of r 43 (1) of the Supreme Court Rules, 2018. The application is opposed. More
After reading papers filed of record and hearing counsel in this matter, I dismissed the application that was before me with costs, and indicated that the reasons for judgment would be available in due course. These are they. The facts of this case can be summarised as follows: The applicant, Yunus Ahmed was the Director of a company known as Foldaway Investments Private Limited. The respondent, Docking Station Safaris Private Limited t/a CC Sales is a company duly registered in accordance with the laws of Zimbabwe. More
This is an appeal against the whole judgment of the High Court sitting at Bulawayo in which it granted absolution from the instance against the appellants` claim. More
This is an application for summary judgment, in which the applicant seeks the following relief, as per its summons and declaration:
“a. An order confirming the termination of the lease agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant.
b. Eviction of the defendant and all those claiming occupation through it from Stand 1435 A Salisbury Township, Harare, owned by the plaintiffas successor in title to the Kay Trust, commonly known as 12 Park Street, Harare.
c. Holding over damages at the rate of the equivalent of USD 133.33(One Hundred and Thirty – three United States Dollars and Thirty – Three cents... More
On 30th September 2014 at Harare Arbitrator M Mpango issued an arbitration award. He dismissed Appellant’s complaint of unfair dismissal from employment by Respondent. Appellant then appealed to this Court against the award. Respondent opposed the appeal. More
The application before this court is for an order of ejectment of the respondent from the property known as 46 Van Praagh Avenue, Milton Park, Harare. The application is based on an alleged breach by the respondent of a lease agreement in terms of which it is a lessee of stand 4343 Salisbury Township of Salisbury Township Lands, also known as 4b Van Praagh Avenue, Milton Park. The said property is owned by the applicant. More
I have difficulties in appreciating the urgency in this matter which would justify it being given preferential treatment over other matters awaiting determination by this court.
There is evidence that the second applicant adopted a casual approach in trying to have his stay in this country regularised. It is clear that from the moment he was told his file had been misplaced he did not pursue the matter further until his arrest. He continued to stay in this country until he was arrested. A prudent immigrant would have continued to pursue the matter with the immigration office for regularization of... More
Regrettably, due to circumstances beyond anyone’s control, this application has a checkered history. The applicants initially filed their application sometime in 2017, presumably in anticipation to be eligible to vote in the country’s harmonized elections in 2018. It was subsequently set down and argued before Honourable PHIRI J on 18 July 2018. He reserved his judgment. Unfortunately his LORDSHIP became unwell and passed on before he could deliver the judgment. Needless to say, the proceedings became abortive resulting in them commencing afresh before me. More
This is an application for interim relief made in terms of s 92 E (3) of the Labour Court Act (“the Act”), for the suspension of an order granted by the first respondent.
Before the matter proceeded into the merits, the third respondent raised four points in limineand the applicant raised one point inlimine. This judgment therefore addresses the five points in limine raised by the parties.
The first point in limine raised by the third respondent is that the appellant is barred and cannot approach this court for interim relief since it did not file heads of argument in... More
On 20th March 2014 Applicant filed an application for interim relief in terms of Section 92 E (3) of the Labour Act [Cap 28:01]. The application was responded to on 10th April 2014. Both parties filed Heads of Argument and the matter was set down for hearing on 12th May 20-14.
On 5th May 2014 Applicant filed a notice of withdrawal without tendering Respondent’s wasted costs. On the following day Respondent wrote to the Applicant pointing out that the purported withdrawal is defective and gave 48 hours within which Applicant should tender costs failing which the Respondent would pursue the... More
This is an urgent chamber application to stay the execution of the judgment issued in the matter under case number HC 2272/18; Ex-Ref LC/MT/531/18; Ex-Ref LC/B/LARA/2777/18 and the sale of applicant’s movable property being a trailer, bearing registration number ABS 1872. The application is premised on the following grounds:
(a) the matter is urgent;
(b) applicant will suffer irreparable harm or prejudice if execution is granted;
(c) applicant has very good prospects of success on the merits in the main application under case number HC 823/19 More
The applicant approached this court seeking an order to rescind the order granted by this court on 1 April 2009 in HC 6379/07. He approaches the matter from two fronts He seeks rescission in terms of r 63 as well as in terms of r 449 of the High Court Rules (1971) (the rules). His basis for seeking the order is that he was not aware that the matter had been set down for a pre-trial conference. He did not receive the correspondence from his legal practitioners advising him of the set down date. He would receive correspondence from his... More
