This matter was argued before me on 25 October 2010. Counsel for both the applicant and the respondent undertook to furnish me with authorities for the arguments advanced on behalf of both litigants. Unhappily counsel did not act on their undertaking with the result that the authorities filed by counsel for the respondent was only availed on 11 November 2010. To date I have not received any from the applicant’s counsel and as a result this judgment will be prepared without the benefit of those authorities More
The applicants have had a long running legal battle with the 4th respondent (Air Zimbabwe Holdings) and Air Zimbabwe (Pvt) Ltd, a subsidiary company of Air Zimbabwe Holdings. The legal dispute between the parties has its genesis steeped in matters of employment. It is claimed that Air Zimbabwe Holdings and Air Zimbabwe (Pvt) Ltd owe the applicants and their members (who are employees of the former) approximately US$35 415 731,80 representing union dues and salary arrears for the period January, 2009 to December 2011. The applicants believe that the financial woes bedevilling Air Zimbabwe Holdings and Air Zimbabwe (Pvt) Ltd... More
After hearing argument, I granted the application and indicated the reasons will follow. These are they. This is an application for leave to execute judgment pending an appeal against the judgment dated 7 March 2007 given under case HC 3796/06. More
This is an application for upliftment of a bar. The three applicants herein are the defendants in the main matter while the respondent herein is the plaintiff. I will refer to the parties as the plaintiff and defendants for ease of reference. More
The 9 plaintiffs are the descendants of Mudyanadzo Chimombe of Gutu who once ruled as Chief Chimombe. The first defendant is the resigning Chief Chimombe he having been appointed by the President of Zimbabwe in terms of the Traditional Leaders Act [Cap 29:17]. More
In this application, the applicant seeks a provisional order in the following terms;
“Terms of Final Order Sought
That you show cause to this Honourable Court why an order should not be granted in the following terms:
1. Respondent in fencing its cantonment area or operation shall not include the applicant’s land which was purchased from Kadoma Rural District Council which is also known as number 2 The Range until there’s an order from a competent court to do so.
2. Respondent to pay costs of suit at a higher scale. More
