I heard this matter on 16 May, 2022. I delivered an ex tempore judgment in which I granted the application as prayed. On 23 May, 2022 the respondent wrote requesting written reasons for my decision. These are they:
The respondent, a municipality which is established in accordance with the Urban Council Act, sold to the first, second, third and fourth applicants stand numbers 1051, 1043, 1044 and 1052 (“ the property/properties”) respectively. It sold the first two properties to the first and second applicants on 13 November, 2019 and the last two properties to the third and fourth applicants on... More
After hearing the parties on 11 July 2017 the following pronouncement was made by the Court:
“The unanimous view of this court is that there is no merit in this appeal. The appeal be and is hereby dismissed with costs. Full reasons for judgment will be availed in due course” More
This is an application for bail pending the finalisation of trial. Applicant is being charged with the crime of contravening section 60 A (3a) (b) of the Electricity Act [Chapter 13:19] i.e. to cut, damage, destroy or interfere with any apparatus used for generation, transmission, distribution or supply of electricity. The allegations are that on the 23rd March 2020, during the night and at a bushy area along Mzingwani Road, stretching to Alwyn Road, Hope Fountain, Bulawayo, applicant unlawfully and intentionally cut, damaged, destroyed or interfered with any apparatus or material used in connection, distribution or supply of electricity. He... More
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
