On 30 November 2018, Plaintiff and 1st Defendant entered into a verbal agreement. Under that agreement, Plaintiff paid an amount of US$87,000.00 in return for the delivery of a motor vehicle, a Toyota Land Cruiser Prado VX Chassis Number JJEBH3FJ4OK20718. [the motor vehicle]. The motor vehicle described above was imported into Zimbabwe from South Africa by the 1st Defendant. In or around June 2021, the aforesaid motor vehicle was seized from Plaintiff by the Zimbabwe Revenue Authority [ZIMRA] on the basis that its importation into Zimbabwe had been done fraudulently. The Defendants were duly notified of that development. Despite making... More
On the 1st March 2024 at Harare, Designated Agent K Murenje issued a determination
which ordered appellant to pay respondent various amounts denominated in United States Dollars (USD). Appellant then appealed the determination to this Court in terms of Section 92D of the Labour Act Chapter 28:01 hereafter called “the Act.” Respondent opposed the appeal. More
On 20 November 2009, Zimbabwe Allied Banking Group Ltd issued summons out of this court seeking an order of specific performance alternatively damages. It was served by the plaintiff’s legal practitioners Mawere and Sibanda on the defendant’s legal practitioners, Madziwanzira, Gama and Associates on 3 December 2009. Appearance was filed on 8 December 2009. On 7 January the defendant requested for further particulars, which were supplied on 12 January 2010. Further and better particulars requested on 29 January were furnished on 3 February 2010. More
This matter was set down as an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. On the hearing date the applicant applied that the bar operating against it vis filing of Heads of Arguments be uplifted. Respondent objected to the upliftment of the bar and moved the court to rule that the applicant is barred for want of filing heads of argument on time. This judgment therefore concerns itself with the point in limine vis the upliftment of the bar only. More
This is an application for leave to appeal against the decision of this court that was handed down on the 31st May 2019. This court in its judgment found that the Applicant had erred by applying SI 15/2006 when there were regulations that were provided for it to apply in conducting disciplinary proceedings. More
This is an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court in a matter where this court upheld the point in limine which was raised by the respondent employees against the appellant employer. The point was basically to do with the fact that the appellant employer had appealed to the Labour Court before seeking leave to have the arbitral award which it was appealing against stayed/suspended pending the hearing of the appeal. More
This is an application in terms of section 92 C of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01]. It is an application to have the judgment of the court corrected as it is alleged that there is an error in the final order of the court. Mr Ndudzo for the applicant submitted that whilst the order of the court may be sound it is the implication in the interpretation of paragraph (c) thereof that is problematic. Mr Ndudzo further stated that a reading of the order would entitle respondents to benefits which were not extant at the time of their appointments. It... More
Before me is an urgent Court Application for Leave to Execute Warrant of Search and Seizure Pending Appeal noted with the Supreme Court under SC32/25. The present application is made in terms of Rule 59(6) of the High Court Rules, 2021. The Applicants prayed for the following order as relief,
“1. The application is granted
2. The 1st-4th Applicants be and are hereby granted leave to execute warrant of search and seizure WSS-ZACC 3477/24 pending the determination of the appeal filed under Case Number SC 32/24.
3. The Respondent shall pay costs on a Legal Practitioner and Client scale.” More
This is an appeal against an arbitral award where the arbitrator ruled in favour of the now Respondents in a case where the parties were locked in a dispute of over certain allowances and the reduction of the now Respondents’ employment contract to wiring. More
The applicant, Zimbabwe Anti-Corruption Commission, is a statutory body. It owes its existence to the Constitution of Zimbabwe. Its aim and object are to fight and, as its name suggests, eradicate corruption from within the lengths and breadths of the country. It deals with such other offences as theft, misappropriation of funds, abuse of power and other improper conduct in both the public and private sectors of Zimbabwe. It investigates and exposes cases of corruption and all crimes which are related to it. More
The applicant is a universitas, being a church of Christian denomination. It is established in terms of the laws of Zimbabwe. On 8 July 2021, the applicant filed an urgent chamber application seeking relief primarily against the first and second respondents. The relief sought is set out in the draft provisional order accompanying the application and it reads as follows: More
The 1st applicant in this matter is the Zimbabwe Banking and Allied Workers Union (ZIBAWU). The union was originally registered in February 1991 to cover banking institutions and in April 1992 its scope of coverage was varied to cover financial institutions. More
This is a provisional sentence matter. On 9 November 2004, the plaintiff issued provisional sentence summons against
the defendant, claiming provisional sentence in an amount of $720 428 163.97 (Seven
Hundred and Twenty Million Four Hundred and Twenty- Eight Thousand One Hundred
and Sixty Three Dollars and Ninety Seven Cents), together with interest thereon at the
prescribed rate from 5 April 2004, being the date of demand to date of payment in full. More
The appeal was noted against an arbitral award handed down by the Hon. G. Kwaramba dated 28th October 2014.
The Respondent was employed by the appellant as a Consultant effective 1st March 2009. The consultancy agreement terminated on the 24th of July 2013. The respondent thereafter lodged a claim for unlawful dismissal and non-payment of terminal benefits and salaries. The matter was referred to arbitration in terms of Section 98(6) of the Labour Act [Cap 28:01]. The terms of reference before the Arbitrator were as follows;
1. To determine whether or not there was unlawful dismissal and non-payment of terminal... More
This judgment concerns two applications for condonation filed by the Applicant. They are for condonation for late filing of heads of argument in both an application for interim relief and the main appeal. More
