This is an application in terms of r 43 (1) of the Supreme Court Rules, 2018 (the Rules) for the condonation of non-compliance with r 38 (1) of the Rules and for extension of time within which to appeal. The applicant seeks to appeal the judgment of the High Court handed down as judgment number HH 452/21. More
This is an urgent chamber application for an order interdicting the first respondent from carrying out any exploration and or mining operations including excavating, extracting and carting away coal or any other mineral from the Reserved area 1035 (RA1035) measuring 56 203 hectares and the area covered by Special Grant 849 in the Bulawayo mining district. On the return date the applicants seek an order declaring that the first respondent has no right to prospect and peg in the area referred to above and for first respondent and all persons
claiming occupation through it to be ordered to vacate the... More
This is an urgent court application in which the applicant seeks the following relief:
“TERMS OF THE FINAL ORDER SOUGHT
That the First Respondent shows cause why a final order should not be granted in the following terms:
1. The Application be and is hereby granted
2. The Execution of the Default Judgment granted on the 21st of June; 2022 under Case No MC 39520/16 against the Applicant be and is hereby stayed pending the determination of the Application for Rescission of Default Judgment under Case No SC 237/22
3. There shall be no order to costs More
Appellant filed his notice of appeal on the 2nd August 2022. Respondent filed its notice of response on 12th August 2022. Then appellant filed an answering affidavit on the 24th August 2022. Respondent argued that the answer was improperly filed. Rule 19 of the Labour Court Rules SI. 150/17 provides for an appeal and response thereto. It does not provide for an answering affidavit by the appellant. On that basis the answer was improperly filed. Appellant sought to get around this hurdle by seeking condonation by this Court. Indeed the Court can condone departure from the Rules in terms of... More
Appellant appealed to this Court against his dismissal from employment by Respondent. The appeal is provided for by section 92D of the Labour Act Chapter 28:01. The grounds of appeal were initially two-fold. However upon challenge by respondent, this Court struck off the second ground. More
The applicant, a legal entity which is registered in terms of the laws of Zambia applied to review the decision of the respondent, a corporate body which is established in accordance with the Revenue Authority Act of Zimbabwe. Its grounds of review are three. They are that:
i)the respondent’s forfeiture of its techno mobile phones is grossly irregular on account of the allegation that the respondent failed to take into account the fact that the applicant was not involved in the violation of the Customs and Excise Act [Chapter 23:02] (“the Act”)
ii)the respondent’s forfeiture of the applicant’s mobile phones... More
