The cause of action under para 1 is based on the breach of contract arising from an agreement made between the parties on or about 9 September 2005. More
This is an appeal against the decision by Respondent’s Group Chief Executive confirming the dismissal of Appellant from employment. The brief facts are that Appellant was at the time of the dismissal employed by the Respondent as an export Manager but assigned to Respondent’s subsidiary in Malawi as its Managing Director. Appellant was charged and found guilty More
After hearing both counsels in argument we allowed this appeal and indicated that our reasons for that decision will follow. These are the reasons. Appellant was charged with unlawful entry in aggravated circumstances as defined in s 131(2) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Cap 9:23]. After a contested trial, the appellant was found guilty as charged. He was thereupon sentenced to thirty-six months imprisonment of which twelve months suspended were on appropriate conditions. He appeals against both conviction and sentence. More
This is an application for review by the applicant. The basis for the application is that the respondent company hastily concluded negotiations pertaining to his exit from his job to the extent that he felt that he was coerced into accepting the final settlement which saw him exiting the respondent company .It is therefore his prayer that this court directs the respondent company to renegotiate his exit package. More
The plaintiff’s pleadings are a mess. They do not comply with the strict requirements of the High Court rules. The face of the summons does not identify the 13 others. The declaration does not do so either. In addition it does not comply with the rules of court. It contains extraneous information and is argumentative in nature. A letter of suspension, three death certificates, a burial order and the Supreme Court judgment SC 66/02 concerning the plaintiff and the second defendant are attached to the declaration. It is in the format of a founding affidavit rather than a declaration. When... More
This is an appeal against the whole judgment of the Gweru Magistrates court delivered on 20 April 2010 in which the court a quo inter alia granted sole custody of two minor children to the respondent without also granting appellant reasonable access, maintenance in respect of the appellant in the sum of $300,00 per month and a reciprocal protection order against both parties. More
The above appeals are all centred on the decision of the respondent refusing to allow as permissible deductions in terms of section 15(2)(gg) of the Income Tax Act [Cap 23:06] certain expenditures incurred by the appellants. To the extent that there are minimal disputes of fact and to the extent that the issues of law raised are the same, it was agreed to consolidate the matters and to issue a single judgment covering all the appellants. More
