This is an opposed appeal against the decision of the Works Council of the respondent. The facts of the case are that the applicant was employed by the respondent. On the night of the 23rd August 2018 he was driving the company’s vehicle. On a straight was no other vehicle, animal or thing that was on the road. It was a one man accident. No witnesses. More
On 14 August 2019 the appellant appeared before the senior Magistrate sitting at Mutare facing a charge of Robbery as defined in s 126 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23]. The state alleged that on 13 August 2019 and Kale Church Federation, Dangamvura, Mutare, the appellant unlawfully and intentionally used violence and attempted to strike Tinashe Munyanyi on his hands with an axe and stole GTel X5 cell phone. The appellant who was not legally represented pleaded guilty, he was convicted and sentenced to 5 years imprisonment of which 1 year imprisonment was suspended for 5... More
On 11th January 2012 this Court made an order. In terms thereof, Respondent was ordered to reinstate Applicant’s employment. Alternatively Respondent was ordered to pay Applicant damages for loss of employment in a sum either agreed by the parties or assessed by this Court. On 9th February 2012 the parties drew up and signed an agreement. As a result of the agreement, Respondent paid Applicant an amount of US$998.74. More
This is an application for condonation of the late filing of an application for Review. The facts, which are common cause are that the Second Respondent rendered a determination which served on the Applicant on 5 June 2024. In terms of the Rules, Applicant was supposed to the application for Review within 21 days. This was not done. Applicant has therefore approached this Court for condonation. More
21 September, 2020 was the return date for consideration of the provisional order which the court entered for the applicant on 10 June, 2015. I considered the application on the mentioned date following submissions which the parties made in regard to their respective cases. I confirmed the provisional order as I was moved to do by the applicant. More
The appellant in this case was employed by Braeside Spar as a counter hand. She was charged for lack of skill which she expressly held herself out to possess.
The facts leading to this allegation against her were that, on 29 October 2012 the respondent failed to serve a client in a manner that was expected of her, leading to the client lodging complaints against her with management. More
This is an appeal by the employer (appellant) against a decision in favour of the respondent.
The brief facts are that the respondent was suspended from employment on 29 October 2012. She was thereafter charged with an act of misconduct and was found guilty. The disciplinary committee recommended after hearing the matter that the respondent be given a final written warning. The employer ordered that she be dismissed. More
The plaintiffs’ substantive claim is for an order of ejectment of the second defendant from a certain house in Southerton, a middle density suburb south of Harare. The full description of that property is: a certain piece of land situate in the District of Salisbury, called Stand 8540 Salisbury Township of Salisbury Township Lands, measuring 612 m2, otherwise known as 32 Peall Road, Southerton, Harare. Ancillary to this claim is another directing the first defendant to grant the plaintiffs vacant possession of the property. Holding over damages at the rate of $300 per month from April 2010 to the date... More
At the close of Plaintiff’s case, Defendant launched an application for absolution from the instance. As was to be expected, the application is opposed by Plaintiff. Plaintiff issued a summons in his individual capacity in 2016 out of this Court claiming payment, form the Defendant of US$234 500.00 plus costs of suit on a legal practitioner and client scale. The claim is based on unpaid for security services Plaintiff allegedly rendered to Defendant. Defendant defended the action. More
The applicant approached the court with an application for bail pending trial. The applicant is facing four counts of theft of motor vehicles. The circumstances as outlined in State papers attached clearly shows that he approached the four complainants for purposes of hiring their vehicles which he in turn sold to one Phillip Samudzimu. The applicant in support of the application filed written submissions and also oral submissions were highlighted by the applicant counsel Mr Hove. Mr Hove pointed out that the applicant was a Zimbabwean of fixed abode and that he was a suitable candidate for bail. He further... More
This is an application for execution pending appeal arising from my judgment of 7 November 2007 in which I ordered National Blankets Limited to pay Branson Marketing (Pvt) Limited the sum of ZAR 720 607-07 and interest a tempore morae at the rate applicable in South Africa from the date of the service of summons to the date of payment in full plus costs of suit. It was filed on 2 July and opposed on 17 July 2008. More
BravoLtd is a company in the business of letting out properties. It owns number 125 Dartford Road, Willowvale,Harare, (hereinafter referred to as the premises). It is the plaintiff and the landlord in this matter. The firstdefendant is Wordhouse Multimedia Services (Pvt) Ltd, the tenant and leases the premises from the plaintiff. Theseconddefendantis a director of the first defendant. He bound himself as surety and co-principal debtor for the first defendant’s obligations under the lease agreement. More
The applicant seeks an order that the respondent be ordered to pay a sum of $15 000.00 to the Registrar of High Court as security for costs for case number HC 53/18 (main case), before such case can be set down for trial. The application is opposed. More
This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court ordering the appellant to pay the outstanding amount due to the respondent in United States dollars (USD) as opposed to its Real Time Gross Settlement (RTGS) equivalent. More
Pending the determination of the application for review under HC4317/22 Applicant is granted the following relief
1. First and second respondents be and are hereby interdicted fromeffectuating carrying into execution and /or performing the tender award to the second respondent described as CIP and Chemicals Tender. More
