On 14 October 2021 I removed this matter from the roll for urgent chamber applications because I considered it not urgent. I gave my reasons ex tempore in the presence of all parties.
This court has been inundated by a glut of disputes arising fromvarious complex competing claims to stands situated atLot 12 Tynwald North owned by Mr & Mrs Sibindi. The Sibindis subdivided the property creating stands which they have sold to various persons. Unfortunately, there are numerous cases where the same stands have been sold many times over leaving claimants at each other’s throats while Mr Sibindi watches... More
On the 6th May 2021 at Harare the Designated Agent (DA) A. Masiya made a determination. He ruled that Appellant had been fairly dismissed from employment by Respondent. Appellant then appealed to this Court against the determination . Such an appeal is provided for by Section 92D of the Labour Act Chapter 28:01. More
I set HC 6264/21 down for hearing. The hearing was scheduled for 20 June, 2022. At the hearing, the applicant which was the respondent in the case raised a preliminary point. It did so through counsel. Its in limine matter was that the first respondent (“the respondent”) which was the applicant in the court a quo did not file its Heads within the dies which TSANGA J issued to the parties on 4 February, 2022. It insisted that the respondent was barred and could not, therefore, be heard until it unbarred itself. The respondent opposed the preliminary point which the... More
The applicant filed an urgent chamber application for attachment of property to confirm jurisdiction. I granted the order on 29 October 2021.
The first respondent has anticipated the return date and seeks that the provisional order granted on 29 October 2021 be discharged with costs on an attorney client scale.
The application for attachment of property to confirm jurisdiction is based on the following basis extracted from the founding affidavit of applicant.
The applicant is employed by MB Transport as a driver. On 20 November 2020 at the 220 kilometer peg along the Masvingo Beitbridge Road second respondent who was... More
This is an appeal against the whole judgment of the High Court (the court a quo)
in which it dismissed the appellant`s urgent chamber application wherein she sought an interdict to prevent the first respondent (the President) from establishing a Tribunal in terms of s 187 (3) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe, 2013 (‘the Constitution’). More
[1] This is an appeal against the whole judgment of the High Court (the ‘court a quo’) wherein the court granted a provisional order in an urgent chamber application made by the respondent. The court a quo ordered that a motor vehicle in the possession of the appellant be placed under judicial attachment pending the return day of the provisional order. The court further interdicted both the appellant and the respondent from using the motor vehicle pending the determination of the matter. More
In this application, the applicant seeks an order compelling the first respondent to sign documents necessary to transfer a property in SekeChitungwiza to him. He alleges that he purchased the said property from the first respondent and has produced an agreement of sale brokered by Moonwave Properties t/a Maps Asset Management which he says was signed by the parties. More
