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
The applicant seeks an order postponing or suspending the sale of a dwelling in terms of s 348 (A) 5 (a) of the High Court Rules, 1971, the Rules. More
This is an appeal against the entire judgment of the Labour Court dismissing the appellant’s appeal against a decision of the Grievance and Disciplinary Committee of the National Employment Council for the Tobacco Industry (“the NEC Grievance and Disciplinary Committee”) which found that the appellant had failed to prove a prima facie case against the respondent. More
This is an application for condonation of late noting of an appeal and extension of time within which to appeal. The application is made in terms of Rule 61 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2018 which provides as follows:
“61 Applications for extension of time to appeal
Save where it is expressly or, by necessary implication prohibited by the enactment concerned, a Judge may, if special circumstances are shown by way of an application in writing, condone the late noting of the appeal and extend the time laid down, whether by r 60 or by the enactment concerned, for instituting... More
This is an appeal against the decision of the National Employment Council Industry Grievance and Disciplinary Committee 9”NEC Disciplinary Committee”) handed down on 7 February 2014. In its findings the Disciplinary Committee found that the appellant failed to prove a prima facie case against the Respondent. More
This is an appeal against the decision of the National Employment Council for the Tobacco Industry Grievance and Disciplinary Committee (NEC GDC) to set aside the penalty of dismissal that had been meted on the respondent by the Works Council and substituting it with a Final Written Warning. More
After hearing argument from both parties, I delivered judgment extempore, dismissing the application. This is the full judgement.
Before the court is an application for condonation of late noting of an appeal and late filing of an application for review. More
Respondent was employed as a Distribution Representative by Appellant. He was charged with various counts of misconduct as provided for in the employer’s Code of Conduct. He pleaded guilty to the charges. The Disciplinary Committee recommended his dismissal. Respondent appealed to the Works Council. The Works Council dismissed Respondent’s appeal and he took the matter up with the National Employment Council (NEC) which constituted the Grievance and Disciplinary Committee (GDC) which body set aside the decision to dismiss him and substituted it with a Final Written Warning valid for twelve months. More
