: This is an application for a declaratur by applicant in terms of section 14 of the High Court Act [Chapter 7:06]. The initial Draft Order filed together with the application on 19 July 2021 has since been abandoned by applicant and replaced by another More
Applicant is a member of the Zimbabwe Catering and Hotel Workers Union (1st respondent). 1st respondent’s stated aims and objectives are the establishment of a union that seeks to regulate the relations between members and their employees and to protect and further the interests of members in relation to their employees. Amongst other objectives, 1st respondent was established to foster and encourage the establishment of good conditions in the workplace and generally to promote the interests of its members. Membership to the 1st respondent is open to employees in the Catering Industry in Zimbabwe. In terms of section 23 (8)... More
This is an appeal against the granting of a spoliation order in favour of the respondents. The appeal succeeds in that spoliation is about possession and not access. The order having been granted on the basis of the respondents accessing the premises in furtherance of the right to worship as opposed to having been despoiled of possession which was not at all in their hands, the order for spoliation by the court below was improperly granted against the backdrop of the totality of the facts of the matter. More
Applicant seeks summary judgment on a claim for eviction of the respondent from the property known as Stand Number 7452 Mutare Township of Umtali Township Lands measuring 2630 square metres (the property). More
1. This is an appeal against the decision of the High Court (the ‘court a quo’) dated 6 August, 2021 in which it dismissed the appellant’s application for a declaratory order. Dissatisfied, the appellant appealed to this court for relief. After hearing submissions from counsel, this court allowed the appeal with costs, set aside the judgment of the court a quo and remitted the matter for a hearing de novo before a different judge. It was indicated that the reasons for this order would follow in due course. I now proffer the reasons hereunder. More
The case itself has a chequered history being a labour dispute that has gone backwards and forwards as the parties bickered over either the procedure adopted or the choice of arbiter. The appellant was employed by the respondent as its Managing Director. He was suspended from employment in April 2010 on allegations of gross incompetence and gross inefficiency under s 4(f) and (h) of the National Employment Code of Conduct, S.I. 15 of 2006 (the National Code of Conduct). More
The plaintiff issued out summons against the defendants for the payment of
“a) General and special damages in the sum of US$32 500 arising from a road accident caused by the negligence of the 2nd defendant whilst in the course and scope of his employment with 1st defendant.
b) Interest on the above amount at the prescribed rate of 5% per annum from the date of judgment to the date of full and final payment.
c) Costs of suit.” More
