Law is not a static discipline. It moves and changes in accordance with a given society’s stage of development. It changes in such a way that what society regarded as lawful yesterday may not be lawful on the following day and vice versa. Its movement and changes are not without reason. They assist people in whose society the changes and movements occur to resolve disputes which arise between, and amongst, them with a certain degree of clarity. They are, therefore, a dispute-resolving mechanism which society puts into place from time to time for the good of its own members. More
This is an application for the late noting of an appeal and late filing of an application for review. The application arises from disciplinary proceedings which led to the applicant’s dismissal from employment on 18 March 2020. More
Applicant filed in this Court an application for review. Respondent opposed the application. The grounds for review were worded as follows;
“The Disciplinary Committee was not properly composed as provided for in terms of …Both employees’ representatives and workers representatives were not part of the Disciplinary Committee and yet statute detects (sic) that they out to have been there.
2. The Appeals Official denied Applicant the right to be heard when he dealt with the matter in the absence of the Applicant…” More
On 27 April, 2021 the applicant sued the respondents under HC 1789/21. He moved for the eviction of the respondents from the Remaining Extent of Kilmacdough Farm (“the property”). The property is in the district of Zvimba which is under Mashonaland West Province. He couched his draft order in the following terms:
“IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1. The Application for eviction is hereby granted.
2. The 1st Respondent, 2nd and 3rd Respondents and all those claiming occupation through them be and are hereby ordered to vacate from the Remaining Extent of Kilmacdough Farm in Zvimba District of Mashonaland West Province... More
This is an appeal from an arbitrator’s decision dismissing Appellant from employment on charges of falsifying or changing any document with fraudulent intent or attempting to do so in contravention of section 11 of Schedule D of Respondent’s Code. I dismissed the appeal with costs on the date of hearing and indicated that reasons would follow. More
This is an application for bail pending trial. The applicant faces one count of possession of a specially protected trophy in contravention of s45 of Parks and Wildlife Act (Chapter 20:14) as read with s 128(b) of the Act and s 11 of the General Law Amendment Laws No. 5/2011, that is, possession of 26 pangolin scales. The applicant denies the allegations. The state opposes the application for bail on the grounds that there are compelling reasons for applicant’s continued detention. More
This is an appeal against the whole judgment of the Labour Court wherein an application for condonation of the failure to timeously file an application for review was dismissed with costs. More
The applicant noted an application for review on or about the 28th February 2014 before this Court. This is the matter which was set for hearing. At the hearing, applicant’s legal representative proceeded to make an oral application for condonation of late noting of the review. This seems to have been prompted by the point in limine raised, that as the application was filed out of time without any application for condonation, it was a legal nullity. This is my ruling on the application for condonation of the late noting of the review. More
1. This is an application for bail pending trial. The applicants are being charged with two counts of robbery as defined in section 126 (1) of the Criminal Law [Codification and Reform] Act [Chapter 9:23] (Criminal Code), and one count of unlawful entry into premises as defined in section 131 of the Criminal Code, and one count of theft as defined in section 113(1) (a) of the Criminal Code. More
The petitioner and the first respondent were contestants for the Bindura South house of assembly constituency in the March 29 harmonised elections. The petitioner was ZANU (PF’s) candidate. The first respondent was MDC Tsvangirai’s candidate. The first respondent won the election. The petitioner is challenging the first respondent’s election. The second respondent was responsible for the running of the elections and is being sued in that capacity. At the hearing of the preliminary issues the petitioner withdrew against the second respondent. I will therefore refer to the first respondent as the respondent as he is now the only respondent in... More
This is an opposed chamber application for condonation for non-compliance with r 55 (5) of the Supreme Court Rules 2018, and the reinstatement of the applicants’ appeal under SC 219/23 which was by operation of law deemed abandoned and dismissed in terms of r 55 (6). The reinstatement is being sought in terms of r 70 (2) of the; afore-said rules. More
The applicant in this matter seeks an order for the transfer of certain shares in First Mutual Limited (FML) from the respondents to the applicant. It also seeks a declaratory order to the effect, inter alia, that its tender of $15.6 billion to the 1st respondent in November 2005 was proper and valid and that it fully extinguished its indebtedness to the respondents and to ENG Capital (Private) Limited (ENG). More
This matter was argued for the purpose of determination of the costs to be paid to the respondents consequent upon withdrawal of the application. The notice of withdrawal of the application which was filed on behalf of the applicant on 16 February 2018 tendered costs on the ordinary scale. The respondents rejected the tender of costs on the ordinary scale. They reacted to the notice of withdrawal by filing supplementary heads of argument. The respondents sought costs on the attorney-client scale against the National Social Security Authority which they argued is the “effective litigant” in the application. Alternatively, costs were... More
Counsel for the applicant was of the view that the extent of delay was eight days. On the other hand it was submitted for the respondent there was a delay of thirty five days. It is not in dispute that the applicant was advised to comply with practice directive 1 of 2014 by 4 March 2014. This is the date upon which it was expected that the applicant if still interested in the prosecution of the matter must have paid the sheriff’s fees for service. Applicant did not pay. I agree with the respondent the dies inducie must be counted... More
