: Rule 236 (4)(b) of the Rules of this Honourable Court provides that “where the applicant has filed an answering affidavit in response to the Respondent’s opposing affidavit but has not, within a month thereafter, set the matter down for hearing, the respondent, on notice to the applicant may either… make a chamber application to dismiss the matter for want of prosecution, and the judge may order the matter to be dismissed with costs or make such other order on such terms as he thinks fit.” Pursuant to the provisions of the above rule the applicant filed the present application... More
The appellant filed an appeal against the decision of the respondent’s mine manager, in his capacity as administering official who presided over his appeal. (Appeal Officer). The Appeal Officer upheld the Disciplinary Committee’s determination, which found the appellant guilty of misconduct and imposed a penalty of dismissal. More
The applicant filed an application for a final interdict in respect of a mining claim known as SARAMINE ‘A’, situate in Kwekwe District, under certificate of registration number 30705. Previously, the mine was registered in 2002 by the applicant’s mother who worked upon the mining claims. The respondent opposes the grant of the interdict and avers that the mining claim encroaches on to the respondent’s Woodridge Plot. It is common cause that the respondent is the holder of a certificate of occupancy in respect of Plot number 6 Woodridge, measuring 40 hectares in extent. The certificate of occupancy was issued... More
This is an application for review. It is opposed. At the commencement of the hearing two preliminary issues were raised on behalf of the respondent. Firstly, Mr Matsikidze who appeared on behalf of the respondent criticized the grounds for review. He argued that the said grounds are combined grounds of appeal on the merits and review. Secondly , Mr Matsikidze argued that the relief sought is incompetent in that the applicant seeks reinstatement instead of having the decision set aside and a rehearing ordered. In the result it was submitted on behalf of the respondent that the application ought to... More
"Till death do us part" These are the vows that the parties made during their marriage on 2 August 2003. These are the vows which the defendant has clung to throughout the trial and has refused to consent to divorce even where all the evidence led during the trial, including her own evidence, leads one to the inescapable conclusion that the marriage had irretrievably broken down More
The appellant was employed by the respondent as a hydraulics and pneumatics technician. He resigned from employment on 8 December 2010 after giving three months’ notice. Upon termination of the contract of employment the parties agreed that, the amount due to the appellant was $2 727-87 being outstanding salaries and terminal benefits. The appellant wanted the whole amount to be paid at once while the respondent offered to pay in instalments of $350-00 per month starting March 2011 and ending December 2011. The parties failed to agree on the period of payment and the matter was referred to conciliation. No... More
The applicant appeared before the 1st respondent a Regional Magistrate sitting at Chinhoyi Court, facing a charge of rape in contravention of s65 of the Criminal Code.The trial proceeded with the 2nd respondent leading evidence until it closed its case. At the close of the 1st respondent’s case, an application was made on behalf of the applicant for discharge at the close of the state case. After considering both the applicant and the 1st respondent’s submissions, the 1st respondent dismissed the application and ordered the trial to continue. In dismissing the application the 2nd respondent found that there was prima... More
The applicant, who was a man of the cloth at the time, was convicted of contravening section 67 (1) (a) of the Criminal Law Codification and Reform Act Chapter 9:23. More
This claim is steeped in delict. The allegations against the two defendants, jointly and severally, the one paying the other to be absolved, are that the second defendant (a farm guard), acting within the course and scope of his employment with the first defendant, “wrongfully and unlawfully pointed and discharged a firearm at the plaintiff” at Debshan Ranch, Gweru, on 26 April 2008. As a consequence of the second defendant’s wrongful and unlawful conduct, the plaintiff sustained injuries, pain, shock and suffering, the nature and effect of which is detailed in the medical report that was attached to the summons... More
The plaintiff in this case issued summons claiming US$78 000.00 against the two defendants jointly and severally the one paying the other to be absolved on 1 June, 2010. The cause of action, as gleaned from the plaintiff’s declaration, is premised on the fact that the second defendant ( a farm guard), acting within the course and scope of his employment with the first defendant, “wrongfully and unlawfully pointed and discharged a firearm at the plaintiff” at Debshan Ranch, Gweru, on 26 April 2008. As a result of second defendant’s wrongful and unlawful conduct the plaintiff sustained injuries, pain, shock... More
The applicant is one of three accused who were found guilty of contravening section 45(1)(b) of the Parks and Wildlife Act [Chapter 20:14] (possession of a live specially protected animal). The trial Magistrate sentenced the applicant along with his co-accused each to 9 years imprisonment. The applicant appealed and his sentence was reduced to 3 years imprisonment of which I year imprisonment was suspended (see HMA 33-19). More
The notice of application for review sets out three (3) grounds for review being bias, irrationality and predetermined outcome. In the course of oral argument respondent abandoned its objection to the 3rd ground (predetermined outcome). As for the 2nd ground (irrationally) it is just 6 lines which essentially say the decision impugned was based on applicant’s absence from the hearing without considering the reasons for the absence. This Court considers it as a cognisable ground for review. Apparently, respondent’s real beef is about the 1st ground (bias). The ground was broken down into 9 paragraphs. These cover a range of... More
The appellant was employed by the respondent as a branch manager at its Mutare Branch. Through his recommendation an order was made and resulted in the respondent company losing money in excess of two hundred and twenty one thousand United States dollars.
The recommendation turned out to have emanated from a fraudulent deal. The appellant was unaware of the fraudulent nature of the transaction. He was thereafter charged with gross incompetence/inefficiency and was dismissed as a result. His internal appeal failed. More
This is an appeal against the judgment of the Magistrate sitting at Harare.
The appellant was the plaintiff in the court a quo while respondent was the defendant. The issues before the trial court and indeed before us were narrowly defined. Plaintiff lent the defendant the sum of US$15 000 in February 2016. An acknowledgement of debt was signed to that effect. The acknowledgement of debt is contained at p 18 of the record. The defendant does not dispute signing the acknowledgement of debt. More
