Applicant seeks the rescission of a judgment of this court, per MANGOTA J, taken in default on 22 March 2022 in case number HC 3823/21. (This order was subsequently amended to address patent errors on 12 April 2022). The judgment related to a dispute over a piece of land located in Chitungwiza. Case number HC 3823/21 commenced as an urgent application resulting in an interim order on 20 July 2021 per CHITAPI J. The order issued (a) certain case management directions to the parties, (b) instructed third respondent to furnish a reportion the piece of land in question and (c),... More
This is an appeal against the whole judgment of the Labour Court (the court a quo) handed down on 28 February 2020 setting aside the appellant’s decision to dismiss the respondents from its employment after a disciplinary hearing and ordering a fresh hearing. At the end of the hearing the court allowed the appeal and indicated that reasons will be provided in due course. More
The plaintiff sued out summons against the defendant for payment of a sum of USD247 317.50 which the defendant owed it following breach of a contract entered into between the parties. After entering an appearance to defend, the defendant elected to utilize alternatives to pleading available to it and filed a special plea instead of pleading over on the merits. The special plea is based on two grounds, firstly, that the plaintiff, being a company is improperly cited as Hwange Coal Gasification Company only omitting the words (Pvt) Ltd. It is argued that,for that reason, there is therefore no plaintiff... More
The respondent is a body corporate established in terms of the Revenue Authority Act [Chapter 23:11]. It is an administrative authority responsible for revenue collection, inter alia, in terms of the Income Tax Act [Chapter 23:08] (herein referred to as the Act). More
On the 22nd of June 2022 we delivered an ex tempore judgment striking off the roll with costs on the punitive scale, an appeal against the decision of the Magistrates Court sitting at Masvingo (“the court a quo”). The court a quo had granted an application for absolution from the instance in respect of a claim brought by the appellant for the recovery of certain sums of money allegedly owed to it by the respondent. At the written request of the appellant who is a self-actor, we now provide reasons informing the decision to so strike the appeal off the... More
The applicant, a company incorporated in terms of the laws of Zimbabwe, approached this court with a chamberapplication. The application was filed under a certificate of urgency. The summarized facts of the case are that in December 2013 the Mining Commissioner issued a certificate of registration in favour of the 1st respondentwhich is a Mining Syndicate fronted by the 2ndrespondent in respect of mining claims known as Block 41573 Kimberly F (herein ‘Kimberly F’) located in Bindura.
The 2nd,3rd and 4th respondents are members of Time of Hope Mining Syndicate, the 1st respondent in this case. Their connection to this... More
The applicant and the 2nd respondent signed an agreement of sale wherein the applicant purchased a certain piece of land in extent 4 000 square metres identified on the plan by number 73 situated along Circular Drive, Matsheumhlophe, Bulawayo. According to the agreement the 2nd respondent represented by one Hendrik Stephanus Rootman is the seller while the purchaser is indicated as Michael FiyadoMathanda. This agreement was signed on the 10th of April 2000. MrRootman is now deceased. The property was subject to a final survey. There were disputes regarding the survey between the property owners and the land surveyors. More
