This is an application for leave for direct access to the court made in terms of s 167(5) of the Constitution (“the Constitution”), as read with r 21(2) and (3) of the Constitutional Court Rules, 2016 (“the Rules”). The application is opposed. More
The facts of this matter are largely common cause. The applicant was employed by the respondent as a personal assistant to the Managing Director, Transport Division. By letter dated 15 June 2009, the applicant was notified that the respondent had restructured its divisions to avoid going into insolvency and that the restructuring had resulted in the abolishment of her post. Consequent thereto, she was offered two options, viz: a retrenchment package or alternatively, placement on garden leave pending redeployment to any other available post within the respondent. Altogether, the exercise affected nine other employees in the respondent’s transport division whose... More
This matter was before me on the unopposed motion roll on 30 June 2021. The plaintiff applied for default judgment against the first and second defendants for payment of USD$500 000 as damages for “shock, non-patrimonial damages, post traumatic disorder, pain and suffering.” The plaintiff also claimed interest from the date of the arbitral award dated 28 March 2014 in an arbitration case between the plaintiff and the second respondent. Lastly plaintiff prayed for costs of suit. The plaintiff in casu applied for default judgment on the basis as stated by her, that the defendants failed to enter appearance to... More
I would not have composed a written judgment but for the need to clear the confusion within the applicant’s misunderstanding of procedure to assert his liberty rights. The background to the applications B 1725/20 and B 1892/20 is as follows.
The applicant was convicted by the regional magistrate sitting at Harare on 4 October, 2017 on four counts of rape. Consequent on the conviction, the applicant was sentenced to fifty years imprisonment. Ten years of that sentence was suspended for five years on conditions of future good behavior. The effective sentence imposed was therefore forty years imprisonment. The applicant noted... More
This is an opposed court application seeking a declaratory order and other ancillary relief in the following terms;
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. The decision by the first respondent to hold a disciplinary trial in 2001 and the conviction of the applicant be and is hereby declared null and void.
2. The decision by the first respondent to hold a Board of Inquiry (Suitability) be and is hereby declared null and void.
3. The applicant be and is hereby reinstated forthwith without loss of salary and benefits.
4. Respondents pay costs of suit on an attorney and client scale.” More
The applicant approaches this Court in terms of s 123 (1) (a) (i) of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act [Chapter 9:07]with an application for bail pending appeal.He initially approached theHigh Courtwith the same application. The court a quo declined jurisdiction and deferred the application for determination by this Court. More
