This is an opposed chamber application for condonation of the late noting of a cross-appeal and for the extension of time within which to file a cross-appeal made in terms of r 43(1) of the Supreme Court Rules, 2018 [ “the Rules”]. More
The applicant, Job Sikhala (“Sikhala”), is a legal practitioner and a politician. He is reviewing the decision of the second respondent (“the magistrate”), who, sitting at the court in Harare, placed him on remand on a charge of contravening s 187(1)(a) as read with s 36(1)(a); alternatively contravening s 187(1)(b) as read with s 36(1)(b); alternatively contravening s 37(1)(a) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act, [Chapter 9:23] (“the Act”). He advances two grounds of review. These are that:
1. The second respondent’s decision was grossly irregular in that it departs from previously decided cases binding on second respondent... More
This is an appeal against part of the judgment of the High Court sitting at Bulawayo, dated 2 May 2019.
The court a quo granted the following order:
1. That the purported Deed of Sale concluded by the parties on 26 January 2010, in respect of a portion of Umguza 100 Acre Lot 5A be and is hereby confirmed to be null and void for want of compliance with the mandatory provisions of the Regional, Town and Country Planning Act [Chapter 29:12]. More
On 5 April 2022 the registrar of this court drew my attention to the letter which Messrs Chimwamurombe Legal Practice wrote to him. The letter relates to this case, among others. The relevant part of the same is contained in its second paragraph. The paragraph which refers to the letter which the same firm of legal practitioners wrote to the registrar on 24 March 2022 reads, in the part, as follows:-
“in the above stated letter, we requested your offices to include the judgment of Justice Mangota under HC 11839/18 in the appeal record. On the 25 March 2022 your... More
This judgment only addresses the point in limine which was raised by the respondent employer. The point was to the effect that there is no respondent in the matter. This is so since applicant employee cited the respondent irregularly by mixing its name together with that of the holding company in the same pleadings. More
The appellant is appealing against the whole judgment of the High Court (the court a quo) delivered on 14 March 2018 under judgment number HH – 141/18 as read with HH - 421 - 20. The order appealed against is couched in the following terms:
“Accordingly I order as follows:
1. Judgment be and is hereby entered for the plaintiff in the sum of US$200 000.00 together with interest thereon at the prescribed rate being 5% with effect from 15 December 2015 to date of payment.
2. Defendant is ordered to pay costs of suit.” More
