MSUL | Midlands State University Library

Court Judgements

Browse Court Judgements by year

ANTECH LABORATORIES (PVT) LTD VERSUS KHAN AND MAWADZI MILLING SYNDICATE AND KWEKWE CITY COUNCIL (2020-05-14)

This is an urgent chamber application in which the applicant seeks the following relief: More

ANTECH LABORATORIES (PVT) LTD VERSUS PERMANENT SECRETARY FOR MINES & MINING DEVELOPMENT AND PROVINCIAL MINING DIRECTOR, MIDLANDS PROVINCE AND KHAN & MAWADZI MILLING SYNDICATE (2020-02-27)

This is an opposed application wherein the applicant seeks the confirmation of a provisional order which was granted by MABHIKWA J on 7th November 2018. More

ANYWAY MADZURE APPLICANT AND DRUMCITY (PVT) LTD 1STRESPONDENT AND ISHMAEL HWINDINGWI 2ND RESPONDENT (2020-07-03)

This is an application for confirmation of the ruling by Designated Agent Madzure that was made on 30 August 2019. The brief facts of the matter are that the 2nd Respondent was dismissed from employment on charges of theft. He had been employed as a driver. He was suspended from duty with effect from 28 November 2017. The amount involved was $19 791-67. Respondent then send a registered mail inviting the claimant for hearing on 29 November 2017. This was seven days before the scheduled date of 7 December 2017. More

ANYWHERE JONASI VERSUS DAIMEN SAILASI AND THE METHODIST CHURCH IN ZIMBABWE AND THE REGISTRAR OF DEEDS BULAWAYO (2020-06-11)

This matter, which has at times splintered into various cases, originates from a very simple issue but has dragged for six (6) long years. The brief history of the matter is as follows; Applicant states that he entered into a lease agreement with 1st respondent and became his tenant at No. 13 Nesbit, Redcliff, Kwekwe on 1 June 2013. No written agreement has been exhibited. Applicant also does not explain throughout, whether the said lease agreement was written or verbal. Applicant further states that on 14 February 2014, 1st respondent “gave him a right of first refusal” should he decide... More

APATRON MINING (PVT) LTD VERSUS EMMERSON DAMBUDZO MNANGAGWA N.O (IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF OF THE DEFENCE FORCES) AND PHILLIP VALERIO SIBANDA N.O (IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE COMMANDER OF THE ZIMBABWE DEFENCE FORCES) AND OPPAH MUCHINGURI N.O (IN HER CAPACITY AS THE MINISTER OF DEFENCE FORCES) AND MACDUFF MADENGA N.O (IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE SHERIFF OF ZIMBABWE) AND TONDERAI TSUNGA N.O (IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE ADDITIONAL SHERIFF MASVINGO) AND JOSPHAT KUDUMBA AND ELLIOT MUSWITA AND FINGER TAPERA AND HEADMAN MHIZHA AND PETER MUDHUMO AND RAFAEL SHOKO AND SOLOMON NDLOVU AND HAIGWARI SAFARIS (PVT) LTD AND DIRECTOR GENERAL, ZIMBABWE PARKS AND WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY N.O AND MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENT AND TOURISIM AND HOSPITALITY N.O (2020-03-12)

This matter was set down before me in Motion Court on 12 March 2020. It is a court application for a declaratur. I ruled and ordered the following that; 1) The matter is opposed 2) The matter be removed from the roll of unopposed matters. 3) There be no order as to costs. Belatedly on 7 October 2020, I received a letter which had been erroneously filed in one of the many cases involving the parties and /or some of the parties in case No. HC 1375/20 being the case of Josphat Kudumba & 7 Others v Apatron Mining (Pvt)... More

APOSTOLIC EJUWELL JEKENISHENI CHURCH VERSUS THE INTERNATIONAL APOSTOLIC EJUWELL JEKENISHENI CHURCH AND BISHOP SHATIRWA MAFUKIDZE AND BAYISO CHAKANYUKA AND MUNETSI NGWENYA AND ANDREW MASHAMAIRE AND CHIEF ZIMUNYA AND MUTARE RURAL DISTRICT COUNCIL (2020-02-14)

In the plaintiff’s declaration, plaintiff is an Apostolic Ejuwell Jekenisheni Church, a religious and Christian Church. 1st defendant is The International Apostolic Ejuwell Jekenisheni Church, plaintiff describes 1st defendant as an off-shoot of the plaintiff. 2nd to 5th defendants are the church leaders of 1st defendant. 6th and 7th defendants were cited in their official capacities. Sometime in 2013 Bishop Elijah Dzingai Nyikambaranda formed 1st defendant constituted by 2nd-5th defendants as its co-leaders. 1st-5th defendants registered its own constitution and from the date of 1st defendant’s formation in 2013, plaintiff and 1st defendant existed as two distinct entities. More

APPELLANT APPEALED TO THIS COURT AGAINST HIS DISCHARGE FROM EMPLOYMENT BY RESPONDENT. THE GROUND OF APPEAL WAS WORDED AS FOLLOWS, “THE DECISION BY RESPONDENT TO UPHOLD MY DISCHARGE WAS MISPLACED BECAUSE IT WAS BASED ON A WRONG ADMISSION OF GUILTY WHICH WAS MADE AT THE BEHEST OF THE DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE WHICH MISLED AND PRESSURISED THE RESPONDENT TO ADMIT WHAT HE HAD NOT DONE. THE ADMISSION DID NOT CONSIDER THE MITIGATORY ISSUES TENDERED BY THE APPELLANT.” IN ADDITION APPELLANT FILED HEADS OF ARGUMENT IN SUPPORT OF HIS APPEAL. THE HEADS DECLAIMED THUS, (2020-03-13)

On the 1st February 2019 Applicant filed an application in this Court for variation of judgment. Respondent filed opposing papers on the 6th February 2019. In due course the matter was set down for hearing. The matter emanates from this Court’s judgment referenced LC/H/504/18 dated the 2nd November 2018. That judgment ordered Respondent to pay Applicant an amount of $67,432-57 in respect of arrear salaries and benefits & damages in lieu reinstatement. More

Electronic Court judgements

Court Judgements