The present appeal seeks to determine whether the correct classification of goods for customs purposes was applied in terms of s 87 (3) of the Customs and Excise Act [Chapter 23:02] and s 18 of the Fiscal Appeals Court Act. More
MABHIKWA J: The applicant filed anapplication for condonation forlate filing of an application for review in terms of Order 3 Rule 359 of the High Court Rules, 1971. She sought the relief that it be ordered that;
“1. The application for condonation of the late noting of an application for review be and is hereby granted.
2. The applicant be and is hereby granted leave to file the application for review of the proceedings in DRGK 92/10 within ten (10) days of this order.
3. The 2nd to 3rd respondents are to pay the costs of this application on a... More
At the hearing of a condonation for late noting of an appeal by the applicant employee the respondent raised points in limine which are the subject of this judgment. The respondent contends that the applicant is prematurely before the court since the Works Council decision which is the one appealable to the Supreme court was only given to the applicant on 15 October 2020. To that extent appellant had up to 4 November 2020 to file his appeal. His condonation application of 13 October 2021 is therefore prematurely before the court. More
This is an appeal against the determination of the respondent’s Appeals Officer handed down on 11 November 2020, which upheld the decision of the Disciplinary Authority, in terms of which the appellant was found guilty of misconduct and dismissed from employment. More
MOYO J: This is a chamber application for the upliftment of a bar. The applicant avers that this is an application for the upliftment of a bar effected against him in case number HC 783/20 on the 9th of June 2020 following his failure to file a notice of opposition and opposing affidavits by the end of day on 9th June 2020. The opposing papers related to a chamber application for the dismissal for want of prosecution of HC 371/20 on the basis that the answering affidavit and the heads of argument therein had not been filed timeously. The 9th... More
The applicant is a Chief Mining Engineer and Shareholder in 2nd respondent, which is a mining entity under judicial management. He seeks a prohibitory interdict, which is specific to the 1st respondent. The applicant claims to have founded the 2nd respondent in 2003. 2nd respondent specializes in gold mining and processing. 1st respondent is a legal practitioner, and the judicial manager of the 2nd respondent. He has some financial interest in the 2nd respondent having made significant financial investment in that entity. The arrangement was that applicant and 1st respondent would get shareholding in 2nd respondent, commensurate with their investment.... More
This is an appeal made in terms of s 121 (1) of the Criminal Procedure & Evidence Act [Chapter 9:23] (“the CPEA”) as read with r 6 (1) of the High Court of Zimbabwe Bail Rules, 1971, pursuant to the Magistrates Court’s dismissal of the appellant’s application for bail pending trial. More
