This is an application for vindication. The application was first argued before me on 11 March 2010 and on 21 July 2010, I ruled that the High Court had no jurisdiction since the matter before me was a labour dispute. The applicant appealed against my ruling and on 31 January 2011 the Supreme Court issued the following order:-
“IT IS RDERED THAT:
1. The appeal be and is hereby allowed with costs.
2. The order of the High Court is set aside with costs.
3. The matter be remitted to the High Court for determination before the same Judge” More
Despite the bulky paper work involved in this case coupled with the detailedand well thought submissions made by the two counsels I prefer to follow a simplified version of this case and put it in the following terms:
Following a series of meetings which were chaired by the first respondent as president of ZCTU and which commenced in 2010 and which meetings included basically all the parties now soaked in this litigation the parties unanimously agreed that the organization would hold its General Conference between 19 and 20 August 2011. More
The application before me is a rei vindication action brought by the applicant against the respondent. The applicant desires an order from this court ordering the respondentto return two motor vehicles to it, viz a Nissan Sunny FB 14 1996 model bearing registration No. 829 – 998 W and a Nissan Sunny HB 12, bearing registration Number 505 – 933 B.
Two notable positions or defences come out of the respondent’s opposing affidavit and poorly drafted heads of argument. The respondent has argued that this court does not have the jurisdiction to meddle itself in labour-related disputes as he perceives... More
On 18 December 2009 the applicant herein issued a purchase order in favour of the respondent for the supply by the latter of 2500 diaries at the total price of US$25 242-50. The diaries were for the year 2010 and it is common cause that the respondent has delivered to the applicant a total of 566 diaries valued at US$4 213-83. The respondent has not delivered the balance and the applicant has cancelled the contract and has now approached this court for an order for restitution of the balance of the purchase price paid to the respondent for the outstanding... More
Following submissions by the two legal practitioners I am enjoined to determine the aspect of urgency in this matter before considering the application on merits. This case has a well documented history dating back to December 2009, spilling over to 2010 and 2011. It is clear that the applicant fully appreciated the need to challenge the legislation on royalties from the time the figures were amended from 2,5% to 3,5 in 2009, and to 5% in 2010. More
The applicant sought an order evicting the respondent and all those claiming occupation through him from House No. 15 Baines Road, Victoria Falls (the property). It also sought an order for costs. More
The applicant is a statutory body, established as such in terms of s 3 of the Revenue Authority Act [Cap 23:11]. It is established as a body corporate, capable of suing and being sued in its own name and, subject to the Act, of performing all acts that bodies corporate may by law perform. Section 4 of the same Act defines its powers as being:
a) to act for the state in assessing, collecting, and enforcing the payment of all revenues;
b) to advise the Minister on matters relating to the raising and collection of revenues; and
c) to perform... More
