This is an appeal against the decision of the respondent employer where it found applicant employee guilty of misconduct and penalised him by withholding his 2020 bonus and also by a final written notice. More
This is an application for bail pending trial. Applicant is charged with three counts, being murder as defined in section 47(1) (a) of the Criminal Law [Codification and Reform] Act [Chapter 9:23] (Criminal Code); attempted murder as defined in section 189 as read with section 47 of the Criminal Code and malicious injury to property as defined in section 140 of the Criminal Code. It being alleged that on the 28th August 2021 at around 2100 hours applicant in the company of other accomplices assaulted complainants several times all over the body using booted feet, clenched fists, axes, machetes and... More
Applicant applied to this Court for the review of the termination of her employment by Respondent. The application was made in terms of Section 92 EE of the Labour Act Chapter 28:01 (hereafter called the Act). Respondent opposed the application. More
This is an opposed application for the joinder of the second and third respondents, brought in terms of rule 32 of the High Court rules, 2021. The second and third respondents did not oppose the application. Most of the facts and background to this dispute are not in contention. It suffices to note that, the first respondent is the applicant in suit HC 2741/14, in which the applicants, herein are the respondents. It is the same case in which the applicants seek the joinder of the said respondents. Central to the dispute in case HC 2741/14 is property 69 Glenara... More
1. This is an urgent application. The applicant seeks a provisional order couched in the following terms:
Terms of the final order sought
That you show cause to this Honourable Court if any, why a final order should not be made in the following terms:
i. That the 1st respondent shall cease and desist all mining and blasting activities on property known as Lot B Lower Rangermore held Title Deed No. 1490/2005 as described in DT 2596/73.
ii. That the 1st respondent is hereby directed to remove all equipment from the property known as Lot B Lower Rangemore held under... More
First applicant is the owner and holder of title in respect of certain piece of land being stand 1584 Que Que Township situate in the District of Que Que in extent 5, 3267 hectares (hereinafter referred to as the property) The 1st respondent issued summons under HC 1799/16 on the 3rd of October 2016 seeking the following relief:
“a. An order compelling 1st and 2nd applicants to stop selling residential stands on 1st respondent’s claims namely Chicago registration number G3041, Orion registration number 7718, November registration number 4177 and Phoenix West parallel registration number B479.
b. An order compelling second... More
On 28 December 2017, the respondent’s Commissioner General (“the Commissioner”) disallowed the appellant’s objection to a number of VAT assessments made against it for the years 2015-2016 totalling US$206 880. This is an appeal against that decision and it is brought in terms of S 33 of the Value Added Tax Act [Chapter 23:12] (“the Act”). The appellant contends that the Respondent wrongfully decided that the appellant should account for VAT at the standard rate of 15% on services rendered to non-resident organizations, namely, foreign domiciled donor organizations implementing development projects in Zimbabwe with the assistance of the appellant. The... More
