This is an application for a mandament van spolie. The applicant is a company which carries on business as a land developer. The first respondent is a company in the same business as the applicant. The second respondent controls the first respondent. His position in that company is not described in the papers. More
The plaintiff issued summons out of this court seeking a decree of divorce, custody of the parties’ minor children and ancillary relief. The facts in this case were mainly common cause and most of the issues were resolved at the Pre Trial Conference which was held before a judge in chambers. The parties reduced the terms of their settlement into writing and indicated during the hearing that they would like it to be made an order of the court upon finalisation of the trial. More
The parties are involved in an ownership dispute of certain mines situated in Kadoma. Sometime in July 2009 they entered into a written agreement in terms of which they swapped certain mining claims with the applicant taking over mining blocks known as Gazemba 105 to 108 belonging to the respondent. In terms of that agreement, the respondent was to take over certain gold mining claims belonging to the applicant. More
On 5 June 2012 I handed down an ex tempore judgment for the registration of an arbitral award made in favour of the applicant against the respondent on the basis that there was no merit in the opposition to such registration. More
On 29th March 2012 the Honourable Y Malama made an arbitration award. In terms thereof, she nullified the demotion of Respondent by Appellant. Appellant was aggrieved by the ruling. It then filed an appeal to this Court against the award. More
In this application, Applicant seeks an order for the payment of arrear salaries and allowances, terminal benefits, severance package, punitive damages and costs of suit. All this amounts to a total of US$132 574.00 as shown on the computations submitted to the Labour Officer who handled the conciliation. More
This is an appeal against sentence. The first and third appellants were convicted of one count of assault while the second appellant was convicted of two counts of assault as defined in s 89 of the Criminal Law (Codificationand Reform Act) [Cap 9.23] after pleading guilty to their respective counts. They were jointly tried.The facts are that all the three appellants firstly assaulted the first complaint and then the second appellant assaulted the second complainant alone on the 8 October, 2011. In respect of the second appellant, both counts were treated as one for purposes of sentence. All the appellants... More
