Following the dismissal of two misconduct charges preferred against the respondent by an independent disciplinary authority, the appellant appealed to the Labour Court (“the court a quo”) which, by judgment delivered on 22 October 2021 struck the appeal off the roll. The basis for doing so was that an employer has no right of appeal against a decision of a disciplinary authority. This appeal is against that judgment of the court a quo. More
The dispute in this application arises from the disputed ownership, control and management of the first respondent company. The first respondent is a duly incorporated and registered company in accordance with the laws of Zimbabwe. The company carries on the business of inter alia manufacturing, importation and exportation of explosives. Its principal place of business is stand 16306 Alaska Mine,Road, Chirorodziva Heights, Stratchoma Township Chinhoyi.
The first applicant, second, third and fourth respondents are foreign nationals of Chinese origin. The second respondent is resident in China and is Director of the first respondent.The third and fourthrespondents as well as the... More
The brief facts upon which the criminal charge is premised involve the sale of a plot which belonged to Maxwell Sibanda but had been bought by SmithMoyo. One Progress Dube obtained judgment against Sibanda and the plot was attached to be sold in execution. The applicant represented Progress Dube. Smith Moyo’s interpleader application was dismissed whereupon SmithMoyo decided to take over payment of the debt so as to save the plot from being sold. Following that agreement the plot was transferred to Smith Moyo. Despite that agreement and the payment of the debt by SmithMoyo, the plot was subsequently auctioned... More
[1] This matter was placed before me as an urgent chamber application. I have been requested to give reasons for the dismissal of the application. These are they.
[2] The applicant sought relief relating to the freeing by the respondent of the sum of ZWL $34, 700,000(Thirty- Four Million Seven Hundred Thousand Dollars) that the former claimed was due to it and was being unlawfully held by the latter. More
The appellant appeals against the whole judgment handed down by the Special Court for Income Tax Appeals (the court a quo) on 8 July 2020 in ITC 10/19. The court a quo allowed the respondent’s appeal against the appellant’s disallowance of transport expenses purportedly incurred by the respondent in the disposal of concentrates from its mine in the 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016 tax years (the relevant tax years). More
This composite application for condonation and extension of time for leave to appeal and leave to appeal raises an interesting question. It is whether an applicant who seeks and is denied condonation for the late filing of an application for leave to appeal in a lower court and therefore fails to make the actual application for such leave in that court, can procedurally seek leave to appeal from a judge of this Court in chambers. More
This matter purports to be an application in terms s 167(2)(d) as read with s 85 of the Constitution and as further read with r 27 of the Constitutional Court Rules, 2016. In essence, the application involves a challenge to the validity of the Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (No. 2) Act of 2021 (“the Amendment No. 2 Act”). More
