The following facts appear to be not in dispute in this matter.
The two respondents were employed by the applicant as research fellows and were based at the Institute of Development Studies. Sometime in 2010 the applicant and the two respondents had an employment dispute which culminated in the subsequent dismissal of the two respondents. More
The present matter is made up of an application and a counter application. In the main application, the applicant is the University of Zimbabwe and the respondent is the now deceased Sherla Greenland. In the counter application Sherla Greenland is the applicant. More
1. This is an appeal against the whole judgment of the Fiscal Appeal Court HH 20/20 dated 8 January 2020. The court a quo dismissed the appellant’s appeal against the decision of the Commissioner in respect of assessed tax and confirmed its amended income assessment made by the Commissioner on 2 September 2015.
2. The appellant is a company, with limited liability, duly incorporated in terms of the laws of Zimbabwe. It carries on the business of mining platinum in an area known as Middleridge Claims in Zimbabwe. The appellant and a related company known as Southridge Limited are subsidiaries... More
This is an opposed chamber application in terms of r 43 of the Supreme Court Rules 2018, for condonation and extension of time within which to note an appeal. More
MUSAKWA JA: This is an opposed chamber application for condonation for non-compliance with the Supreme Court Rules, 2018 and for extension of time in which to appeal made in terms of r 43. The intended appeal is against a judgment of the High Court handed down on 17 February 2021 upholding the respondent’s application for a compelling order. More
The applicant is a company that carries mining operations in Zimbabwe. The first respondent is an administrative authority established in terms of the Revenue Act [Chapter 23:11] tasked with the administration and collection of revenues due in terms of various statutes that it is obliged to enforce. Pursuant to its duties the first respondent issued garnishee notices against the applicant’s banker, Stanbic Bank Zimbabwe which is cited as the second respondent in this matter. One garnishee notice is for the remittal of the sum of USD 24,076,521.04 from the applicant’s account to the first respondent. More
The respondent was an employee of the appellant and she resigned by giving 7 days’ notice instead of the requisite 3 months’ notice as per s 12 (4) (a) of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01]. She proceeded to do a handover takeover procedure. The employer then demanded payment of $1 402-25 being amount due to it in lieu of the 3 months’ notice which respondent failed to serve. The respondent admitted liability by way of an email which appears on record as exh 5, she again reiterated her willingness to pay in another email dated 10 June 2014 which stands... More
The applicant was the defendant in case no. HC 3982/12 and the respondent was the plaintiff. Case no. HC 3982/12 is a summons or action matter in which the applicant was sued for various sums of money in damages allegedly caused by the applicant to the respondent’s property which he rented in terms of a lease agreement. In addition to damages, the applicant was also sued for outstanding rentals and bills, interest and costs on the higher scale of legal practitioner and client. The total sum claimed from the applicant was put at US$12 122.17. My own addition of the... More
This is an opposed court application in which the applicant, a residents’ association for the Crowhill area, seeks a declaratory order together with ancillary relief in terms of s 14 of the High Court Act [Chapter 7:06]. In essence, the applicant asks the Court to invalidate the establishment of a gated community by the first respondent (Mount Breeze Borrowdale Brooke Estate Owners Association) and to affirm the applicant’s members’ right to use a road (commonly known as Crowhill Road) traversing the first respondent’s property. The draft order prays for a declaration that the letter issued by the second respondent (City... More
The second applicant is the managing director of the first respondent. The first respondent is a duly incorporated company in terms of the laws of Zimbabwe.
The first respondent is also a duly incorporated company in terms of the Laws of Zimbabwe. More
The applicant has approached this court on a certificate of urgency seeking 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. The first and the second respondent(s) be and are hereby ordered to release the applicant’s files and records. More
The plaintiff issued summons claiming the following.
“(i) payment of the sum of US$119 300-00 being the remaining balance of the agreed purchase price for one x 20 Tonne Hyundai Excavator, sold and delivered by the plaintiff to the defendant, at its specific instance and request.
(ii) Interest at the prescribed rate calculated from the date of delivery being 19th of June 2014 to the date of full payment.
(iii) Costs of suit on a legal practitioner and client scale.” More
This is an appeal and cross appeal against the quantum of damages in lieu of reinstatement awarded to the Respondent (Jonathan) by the Arbitrator.
The salient facts are as follows, Jonathan was employed by the Appellant (UDCORP) as a Manager in the Department of Development and Technical Services. He was charged and dismissed on charges of misconduct. He referred the matter to a Labour Officer for conciliation which failed. The matter was thereafter referred for compulsory arbitration. The Arbitrator made a finding that Jonathan had been unfairly dismissed More
