The three applicants are ex-constables in the Zimbabwe Republic Police. On 2 May 2014 the three applicants were charged for contravening para 27 of the schedule to the Police Act [Chapter 11:10], “acting in an unbecoming manner or disorderly manner or any manner prejudicial to good order or discipline or reasonably likely to bring discredit to the Police Force”. More
The applicant seeks a declaratur that the first and second respondents’ failure to furnish the applicant with reasons for their decisions is unlawful and wrongful, that the applicant’s discharge from the police service is accordingly set aside, that the respondents are ordered to reinstate the applicant into the police service forthwith and that the respondents are ordered to pay costs of suit on a punitive scale. More
The applicant is seeking an order in the following terms:
“1. The 1st and 2nd respondents’ failure to furnish the applicant with reasons for their decisions is unlawful and wrongful.
2. The applicant’s discharge from the police service is accordingly set aside.
3. The respondents are ordered to reinstate the applicant into the police service forthwith.
4. The respondents are ordered to pay costs of suit on a punitive scale.” More
This is an application for leave to appeal against a provisional judgmentfor the release of trust funds which I granted in favour of the respondent on an urgent basis on 8 June 2016. More
This is an appeal against the judgment of the magistrate sitting at Harare in which he granted an order for the eviction of the appellants from certain premises
owned by the government. More
The appellant was arraigned before the court sitting at Harare Magistrate’s Court for contravening s 52 (2) (a) of the Road Traffic Act [Chapter 13:11]-negligent driving. After a trial the appellant was convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of US$300-00, in default of payment to serve one month imprisonment. More
The applicant approached the court on a Certificate of Urgency setting a Provisional Order in the following terms
“Final Order Sought
1. The decision of the first respondent in Case Number R254-7/15 R300/15 wherein she ordered that the exhibit amounting to US5 545.00 be given to the second respondent is set aside and replaced with the following decision.
2. Party (ies) opposing application to pay costs of suit. More
