The plaintiff’s claim against the defendant is for the sum of US$14 287 in respect of which the defendant signed an acknowledgment of debt. The plaintiff contends that the said amount is due to it for cigarettes sold by it to the defendant. The defendant on the other hand alleges that the acknowledgment of debt relied upon is a forgery and denies being indebted to the plaintiff. More
The appellant filed a claim in the court a quo, against the respondent whereby she was claiming payment of the sum of US$1 149-00 being the balance in respect of goods advanced to and received by the respondent on credit. The claim was contested on the basis that the respondent owed the appellant much less as she had paid some of the money and returned some of the goods. The respondent conceded to owing the appellant US$380-00. After a full trial, the magistrate made an order that the respondent pays the applicant the amount the respondent admitted owing and absolution... More
The plaintiff on 13 May 2011 issued summons out of this court seeking a decree of divorce, custody of the two minor children and division of the assets of the parties on the basis irretrievable breakdown of the marriage. More
Appellant worked for Respondent as a Revenue Specialist based at Beit Bridge. By letter dated 5th August 2005 Respondent charged him with misconduct. A hearing was held. He was found guilty. A penalty of dismissal was imposed. He appealed to the Respondent’s Appeals Committee. The Committee upheld Appellant’s dismissal. He then appealed to this Court. More
This is a matter in which I stayed my decision pending the determination of an appeal in case number CA197/07. The appeal was determined on 5 October 2011 but the respondent in this case promptly noted an appeal with the Supreme Court against the judgment of HLATSHWAYO J. The parties submitted that the determination of the matter again be stayed pending the decision of the Supreme Court. By letter dated 29 October 2012 the parties advised that the appeal before the Supreme Court had been removed from the roll by consent of both parties. Thus, as there is no longer... More
The Appellants in this case engaged in a collective job action.
The employer brought disciplinary proceedings against the Appellants and found them guilty and dismissed then. They appealed against the decision to dismiss them but were unsuccessful before the Designated Agent of the National Employment Council for the Motor Industry. More
