The plaintiff issued summons out of this court on 8 September 2009. It sought an order confirming the cancellation of the lease agreement it had with the defendant, the eviction of the defendant and all those claiming occupation through it, arrear rentals, holding over damages, interest and costs of suit. The summons was served on the defendant on 9 September 2009. The defendant entered appearance on 11 September and filed its plea on 30 October 2009. More
The applicant company is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe. The respondent is an erstwhile employee of the applicant. The respondent was duly dismissed from his employ after a disciplinary inquiry. Aggrieved by this turn of events, the respondent took the matter to the Labour Office alleging an unfair labour practice. The matter was referred to arbitration. The arbitrator found in favour of the respondent and directed the parties to negotiate the quantum of damages for breach of contract. According to the applicant, the negotiations broke down and nothing was said of the matter thereafter until... More
The defendant is a cargo handling company which is in the business of handling airline cargo whereas the plaintiff is one of its customers. Most issues in this case are common cause. The undisputed facts are that on 3 March 2008 a shipment of the plaintiff arrived on board Martnair at the defendant’s premises at the Harare International Airport. The consignment comprised electrical goods and equipment valued at US$44 202-50 and was duly stored in defendant’s warehouse. More
The applicant seeks a spoliation order in the form of a provisional order couched as follows:
“TERMS OF THE FINAL ORDER SOUGHT
That you show cause to this Honourable Court why a final order should not be made in the following terms.
(a) The forcible ejectment from Wolverhampton Farm of the applicant by the first to third respondents and all those acting in concert with them is unlawful.
(b) The cutting of the applicant’s gum plantation and sale of the timber by the first respondent and those acting through him is unlawful.
(c) The fourth respondent shall do all that... More
The plaintiff issued summons, out of this court, claiming payment of storage charges for the period April 2008 to June 2009 in respect of 12 kitchens in the sum of USD 18 0000-00, interest at the rate applicable in the United States of America from date of summons to date of settlement. It also claimed storage charges from 1 July 2009 until the date of completion of the contract calculated at the rate of USD 100-00 per month per kitchen The plaintiff also claims interest on that amount from 1 July 2009m at the sane rate as above, to date... More
The applicants were the recipients of an arbitral award granted on 22 July 2009 against the respondent. In this application they seek the procedural relief of registration of the award as a judgment of this court in terms of s 98 (14) as read with s 98 subs (13) and (15) of the Labour Act [Cap 28:07]. They do not seek any substantive relief.
The respondent has opposed this application on the grounds that the award was irregularly obtained. An appeal against the grant of the award is pending in the Labour Court as well as an application for stay... More
This is an application for summary judgment.
On 18 January 2010, the plaintiff issued summons out of this court seeking an order evicting the defendant from certain premises situate at number 19 guest Avenue, Alexander Park, Harare. The plaintiff also sought an order compelling the defendant to settle arrear rentals in the sum of US$ 9 500 and holding over damages at the rate of $500-00 per month from the date of summons to date of payment in full. It was the plaintiff’s allegation in the summons that the parties entered into an agreement of lease in terms of which... More
