The appellant was employed by the respondent as a sales representative. On 7 July 2014, the appellant was suspended from employment and charged with misconduct for breaching s 4(f) and 4 (g) of the Labour (National Employment Code of Conduct) Regulations SI 15 of 2006(hereinafter referred to as “SI 15 of 2006”). The charges comprised of incompetence and inefficiency in performance of duties, failure to meet monthly targets and failure to carry out duties as per the job description. More
The first and second applicants approached this court seeking the relief for the rescission of default judgment. More particularly, the draft order filed by the first and second applicants is as follows:
“1. Default judgment granted by this Honourable Court on 23rd day of June 2021 be and is hereby rescinded.
2. The Applicant be and is hereby given leave to defend the main action HC 1255-21.
3. Costs be in the main cause.” More
Applicant filed this application seeking an orderin the following terms, that:
1. It is declared that:
(i) the information requested from first Respondent pursuant to the Applicant’s letter to it dated 20 May 2021 is subject to provision of section 5 of the Freedom of Information Act [Chapter 10:33) as read with Section 61 and 62 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe and that the Applicant is entitled to make such request and first Respondent is obliged to make a response thereto.
(ii) the conduct by the first Respondent to withhold the information requested as per sub paragraph (i) above is... More
The background of this matter is that 2nd respondent obtained an order against the 2nd applicant for payment of the sum of USD 29 920.65. Pursuant thereto, 2nd respondent obtained an order in terms of section 318 of the Companies Act, effectively rendering the 1st and 2nd applicants personally liable and indebted to 2nd respondent in their capacity as directors of the 2nd applicant company. Following that court order, 2ndrespondent engaged the 1st respondent for the attachment of the 2nd applicant’s movable property. The property was sold in execution on 23 March 2018 and the sale was confirmed the sale... More
A fire broke out at 100 Hauna Growth Point (hereinafter called the business premises) premises owned by the first plaintiff. First plaintiff rented out the business premises to second plaintiff and defendant. The fire caused destruction to the business premises and movable property and fittings belonging to both first and second plaintiffs. The plaintiffs allege that the damage was caused by defendant’s negligence. Plaintiffs proceeded to issue summons against defendant for damages arising from the destruction caused by the fire to the building itself and the value of the destroyed building and value of the destroyed moveable property and further... More
: Plaintiff issued a summons out of this court seeking Declaratory Orders and consequential relief arising therefrom. This matter is related to some immovable property known as: More
