The two applications were consolidated as they involved the
same parties and the same subject matter. For easy of reference Vimbayi Charity Rundofa shall herein after be referred to as applicant and Luckie Magorimbo as the respondent. The applicant, Vimbayi Charity Rundofa and the first respondent, Luckie Magorimbo, were married in terms of the Marriages Act [Cap 5: 11]. In HC 4418/05 the applicant sued respondent for a decree of divorce and other ancillary relief. The applicant was represented by her present legal practitioners whilst respondent was a self –actor. More
These two matters involve related issues between the same parties. It is convenient that they be dealt with together. The applicants in the first matter are the respondents in the second matter. They seek the provisional order under the certificate of urgency, suspending the order granted in favour of the respondent in a magistrate’s court in case number 9100/12 pending the determination of an appeal against that order filed with the Supreme Court. The back ground to these cases is that Precious ChinyereOkeke is married to Chief Jerome Okeke, a Nigerian businessman resident in Zimbabwe. At some point during their... More
The 29 accused persons are in custody on allegations of murdering a law enforcement officer in the course of duty as defined in s 47 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Cap 9:23] alternatively public violence as defined in s 36 of the Act. They are alleged to have killed a police officer on duty in the course of politically motivated violence. Their trial is currently under way but they have all been remanded in custody by operation of law. More
This is an application for leave to appeal against my judgment of 19 June 2012 denying the 29 accused persons bail on account that they had failed to discharge the onus of proving on a balance of probabilities that they are entitled to bail in terms of s 117 (6) of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act [Cap. 9:23]. That section requires that an accused person alleged to have killed a law enforcement officer in the course of duty be detained in custody until he or she has been dealt with in accordance with the law unless the accused having... More
This is an appeal against the decision of the National Hearing Committee of the respondent company which confirmed the appellant’s dismissal on charges of violating the respondent’s code of conduct. In particular it was alleged that the appellant contravened sections 3(8) (1), 3 (8) (viii), 4(10) and 4(11) of the respondent’s code of conduct.
The brief facts of the case are that appellant was employed by the respondent company as a counter clerk based at Chitungwiza post office. On the 12th of February 2011, whilst on duty the appellant is said to have been involved in a misunderstanding with a... More
Appellant in this matter appealed to this court seeking an order to have the Respondent company’s decision to dismiss him following allegations of misconduct set aside.
The facts of the case are that Appellant who was employed by the Respondent company as a Senior Stores Clerk was charged on 21 October 2011 with 3 counts of contravening the Respondent’s Code of Conduct. On 28 October 2011 he was brought before the disciplinary hearing committee which deliberated his case and found him guilty on the acts of misconduct complained of. Following the guilty verdict, the Appellant was dismissed from his employment.... More
The matter was placed before me as an application for quantification. The Respondent was in default of appearance on the date of the set down. The court upon satisfaction that proper service had been effected on the Respondentproceeded with the hearing by allowing Appellant to make submissions on his claims. See Rule 30 of the Labour Court Rules, Statutory Instrument 59 of 2006. At the end of proceeding the court handed down a judgment in favour of the Appellant in the amounts claimed. In so doing the court was cognisant of the fact that whether the matter had been considered... More
