This is an application for leave to prosecute an appeal in person. The application is dated 5th of November 2019. The matter was initially placed before MABHIKWA J in November 2020. The learned judge who has now left the service ordered that the application for leave for appeal in person be dismissed. More
This is an application for the rescission of a judgement given in default against the applicant employee when he failed to attend hearing of the review matter which he had filed with this court. More
On 13 January 2023, this Court confirmed a draft ruling by Fadzai Marovanyika N.O. and ordered that Respondent pay to the Applicant a total sum of ZWL $ 12 804 277-56. Applicant is dissatisfied with the Order and intends to approach the Supreme on appeal. This is therefore an application for leave to appeal in terms of section 92 F (2) of the Labour Act, (Chapter 28:01). More
This is a contested application for leave to execute pending Appeal. In brief, there has been an ongoing legal battle between the applicant and first respondent over an immovable property, stand 295, Northwood Township 2 of Submenu, measuring 4049 square meters. The second and third respondents are only cited in their official capacities.
Applicant claims that he fully purchased the property from the respondents, sometime in 2013, but is being precluded from having undisturbed enjoyment of the same by the first respondent. First Respondent, on the other hand, is challenging the sale as fraudulent and unsanctioned, as he has always... More
This is a claim for contractual damages brought by the plaintiff against the defendant. The plaintiffs’ claim is founded on contractual damages and arise out of breach of contract. The plaintiff claims a total of US$250, 000.00 in damages. More
1.This is an appeal against conviction only.
2.The appellant was convicted of impersonating a public official in contravention of s179 (1)(a) of the Criminal Law Code and of reckless driving as defined in s53(2) of the Road Traffic Act [Chapter 13:11] (the Act).
3.The two issues that arise in this appeal are these. First, whether the trial court’s factual finding that the appellant impersonated a public official defies reason and common sense. Second, whether the appellant’s admitted manner of driving amounted to reckless driving.
4.We find against the appellant on both issues. Consequently, we uphold the judgement rendered a quo.... More
The background of this matter is that the applicant is a former employee of the first respondent .The two parted ways. When they so parted ways there were some sums of money due to the applicant from the first respondent. This is not disputed. The first respondent did not fulfil its obligations to pay the applicant. This led the applicant to approach a labour officer ,2nd respondent, in terms of s93(5a)and (5b) of the Labour Act,[Chapter 28:01] (the Act).The 1st respondent did not deny its liability, as a result a ‘ Certificate of Settlement’ was signed before the second respondent.... More
