It being the court’s considered view that this appeal was without merit, vexatious and abuse of court process we dismissed the appeal with costs on an attorney-client scale on 23 February 2017. More
This is an appeal against the decision of the arbitrator where he declined to compel the parties to the instant case to introduce housing allowance in their 2012 negotiations at N.E.C. level. He however went on to advise the parties that in the then circumstances they had to leave the matter in the hands of the works council. More
This matter makes bad reading and its background can be summarised as follows:-
After the arbitrator had considered the submissions made by both the applicant and the first respondent, the Arbitrator determined the matter in favour of the first respondent and ordered the applicant to pay the respondent a total sum of $10 060-00 (ten thousand and sixty dollars) for having unfairly terminated the latter’s employment. This determination was made on 17 November 2011. More
This is an appeal against the whole judgment of the High Court of Zimbabwe handed down on 9 September 2020 in which it ruled that the arbitral award granted against the first respondent be set aside and the matter be referred to a different arbitrator. More
This is an application for summary judgment.
The plaintiff issued summons against the defendant on 10 September 2009 claiming the following:
1. Payment of the amount of US$52 579.51 with interest thereon capitalized monthly at the rate of 12 % per annum from 7 September 2009 to date of payment in full;
2. Costs of suit on the scale between legal practitioner and client together with collection charges
3. An order declaring the mortgaged property to be especially executable. More
This is an application for an order setting aside a deed of settlement executed by the applicant and the respondent in Case HC 2810/17. The applicant’s prayer as set out in the draft order reads as follows:
“IT IS ORDERED THAT,
1. The Deed of Settlement signed between the applicant and the respondent in case No HC 2810/17 and filed with the Registrar of the High Court on 27 November 2017 be and is hereby set aside.
2. The respondent shall pay the applicant’s costs on a legal practitioner and client scale.” More
This is a chamber application for the dismissal of the first and second respondents’ application in case No. HC 2702/18 for want of prosecution. The application is in terms of Order 32 r 236 (3) (b) of the High Court Rules, 1971.
Background
A certain immovable property belonging to second respondent was sold in execution to fourth respondent by private treaty for $230 000.00. The sale was pursuant to writ issued in case No. HC 9692/13.First and secondrespondents who are some of the judgment debtors in case No. HC 9692/13 objected to the sale. They undertook to bring before third... More
In November, 2004, the respondents as owners of the applicant sold the assets and goodwill of applicant to Construction Resources Africa, a company duly represented by Danny Musukuma. There were various terms and conditions pertaining to the sale of the assets and the goodwill as well as the directorship and the shareholding of the applicant company. In 2006 a dispute arose regarding the sale agreement. This led to the respondents to purportedly cancel the sale and instituted vindicatory proceedings in case number HC 109/07. The trial in that case has since gone through and judgment was reserved by my sister... More
On 9 January 2007 the plaintiff herein instituted proceedings against the defendant by way of summons for an order for its ejectment from three immovable properties. The defendants filed papers in defence of the claim and in due course the matter was referred to a judge in chambers for the holding of a pre-trial conference. Issues for trial were agreed by the parties at the pre-trial conference and thereafter the matter was referred to trial. When the matter was called for trial Mr Uriri on behalf of the defendant indicated to the court that the defendant had a preliminary issue... More
At the conclusion of the plaintiff’s case, Mr Uriri indicated that the defendant was applying for absolution from the instance and that he had the application ready which would be filed the following day. In the event the application was only filed on 16 September 2010. The response from the plaintiff was in turn filed on 21 October 2010. This has contributed in part to the delay in the determination of the application. More
On 1 September 2016 plaintiff issued summons against defendant claiming;
(a) Payment of the sum of US$15 815,04 which is the outstanding balance in respect of monies lent and advanced at defendant’s special instance and request together with interest as at 31 July 2016.
(b) Interest thereon at the rate of 15% per annum from 1 August 2016 to date of full and final payment.
(c) An order that the mortgaged property being stand 6399 Kwekwe Township of stand 2274 Que Que Township in extent of 4 000 square metres registered in the names of the defendant declared executable; and... More
This is a composite judgment in respect of three appeals which were heard at the same time. The appeals are against the whole judgment of the High Court handed down on 14 May 2020. They all rely on essentially the same grounds of appeal. The three appellants were the respondents in the court a quo but filed separate appeals under SC 183/20, SC 187/20 and SC 203/20. More
This is an urgent chamber application wherein the applicant is seeking the following order:
“TERMS OF FINAL ORDER SOUGHT
That you show cause to this Honourable Court why a final should not be made in the following terms: -
1. It is declared that the applicant is not an exporter or a partial exporter for the purposes of Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe enacted the Exchange Control (Payment for Electricity and Related Services in Foreign Currency by Exporters and Partial Exporters) Order, 2019, Statutory Instrument 249/19.
2. The respondent be and is hereby directed to rebill the applicant in Zimbabwe Dollars... More
On 30 January 2017, the applicant filed this urgent chamber application seeking the following interim relief:
“1. That the first and second respondents be and are hereby directed to repay to the applicant any and all monies taken by them pursuant to the issue by the first respondent of the notice in terms of s 58 of the Income Tax Act [Chapter 23:06] from the accounts as detailed hereunder More
The applicant, a transport company duly incorporated according to the laws of Zimbabwe brought this urgent application for the following interim relief:
“1. More
