This is an appeal against an arbitrator’s decision barring Appellant from reinstituting proceedings against the Respondent. The brief facts are that the Respondent was employed by the Appellant as a Regional Manager based at Bindura. Respondent was charged for contravening sections 4(a) and 4(b) of Statutory Instrument 15of 2006 and was found guilty and dismissed from work. The matter was subsequently referred for conciliation where a certificate of settlement was issued. More
Job’s patience is certainly among the virtues which a judicial officer must possess in the discharge of his/her functions especially when dealing with a lay person self-actor to whom knowledge of both adjectival and substantive law is an intellectual exercise not subscribed to by the common man. More
The plaintiff issued a summons for Provisional Sentence on a liquid document claiming from the defendant an amount of US$10 500-00. The plaintiff averred that its claim is based on a letter dated 27 July 2009 executed by the defendant’s accountant acknowledging the debt due. The letter states that an amount of US$15 000-00 is payable to the plaintiff. The letter also states “We wish to pay yourselves $500-00 .... weekly or US$2 000-00 a month.” More
This judgment pertains to two action matters that were consolidated as they involved the same property and virtually the same parties. The plaintiffs are husband and wife. The first plaintiff is the wife whilst the second plaintiff is the husband. The first plaintiff is the registered owner of an immovable property being Subdivision B of Subdivision D of Subdivision A of Lot 4 of Lot A of Colne Valley of Rietfontein, also known as no. 47 Addington Lane, Ballantyne Park, Harare. More
The applicant is the owner of a certain property known as No 38 Wansford Townhouses being an undivided share of Stand 15125 Salisbury Township (“the property”) which it holds by Deed of Transfer No 2893/2002. It was previously owned by the Mining Industry Pension Fund (“MIPF”). More
On 28 June 2012 the applicant filed the instant application. It was not until 7 November that this matter had to be argued as an opposed application in Court.
When the two counsels appeared before me to argue this matter, the first respondent’s counsel raised two points in limine which he hoped would dispose of the matter in the first respondent’s favour without dealing with the matter on merits. The 1st point in limine taken by counsel for the first respondent for the first time ever was to challenge the status of the deponent to the applicant’s founding affidavit. It... More
The Attorney-General gave notice in terms of s 35 of the High Court Act, [Cap 7:06] that he did not support the conviction of all four appellants in this matter. The record shows that the appeal had previously been set down for hearing on 5 May 2011. It could not be heard because the record of proceedings, i.e. the original and the transcribed copies were unintelligible. It appears that a directive was given at that point to the relevant authorities to rectify the record in order to afford the appellants an opportunity to have their appeal dealt with on the... More
