This is an application for setting aside of an arbitral award in terms of Article 34 (2) (b) (ii) of the Model Law as set out in the Arbitration Act [Chapter 7:15]. The applicant premises its application on the ground that the arbitral award offends against the public policy of Zimbabwe. The first respondent opposed the setting aside of the arbitral award on the basis that the award is not contrary to the public policy of Zimbabwe. He argued that the amount owing in the sum of US$106 960. 01 ought to be paid at the rate of US$1: ZWL$1... More
This is a composite judgment in respect of an arbitral award. For the sake of consistency, the parties will be cited as they appear in HCHC 328/23 which is the application for the setting aside of the award. HCHC 188/23 is an application for the registration of the award. It goes without saying that the decision in HCHC 328/23 will influence that in HCHC 188/23. Essentially the same arguments for and against registration have been advanced by the parties depending on whether it’s the application for registration or for setting aside. More
The applicant is a fund established under the Manpower Planning Development Act (the Act). Its principal mandate is the development of skilled manpower in Zimbabwe. The respondent is a former employee of the applicant who was dismissed from employment for disciplinary reasons. As part of his conditions of service during the tenure of his employment with the applicant, the respondent had been issued with some assets which he did not surrender upon termination of employment. It is those assets that the applicant wishes to recover from the respondent through this application. More
Before me is an application by the Zimbabwe National Road Administration (ZINARA) for rei vindication in respect of a Toyota Hilux (double cab) motor vehicle, registration number AEC 7539 (“the vehicle”). The application is opposed. The factual background giving rise to the dispute is that in May 2010, the applicant and the respondent entered into a contract of employment. The respondent was employed as IT Manager of the applicant. The contract appears in the record on pages 8-10 marked Annexure “B”. Clause 6(b) of this contract reads as follows: More
The applicant in this case is Zimbabwe National Water Authority (ZINWA), a body corporate established in terms of the Zimbabwe National Water Authority Act [Chapter 20:25]. The respondent is Jutstein Mapanzure. He was formerly employed by the applicant. He rose through the applicant’s organogram. . Sometime during their employment relationship, the respondent misconducted himself. The applicant said it then decided to prefer misconduct charges against him. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated but midstream through the process the respondent thought he had seen reason and through his erstwhile legal representatives found it prudent to ditch the confrontation approach. He found it wiser... More
Applicant, a duly registered Trade Union in the Energy industry, has approached this court by way of a court application seeking a mandamus order, in the main, compelling the first respondent, a duly incorporated National Employment Council in the same sector, to admit it to its membership. In the alternative, that the 1st respondent be ordered to allow the applicant to negotiate as a petroleum subsector. The application is opposed. More
The applicant through its Business Performance Manager, one Bernard Chizengeya, filed the present application for rescission of the order granted under case HC 4169/20 dated 21 October 2020. The present application is filed in terms of rule 449 (1) (a) of the High Court Rules, 1971 (“the old Rules”). What had happened is that, sometime in August 2020, the first respondent petitioned this court on an urgent basis under HC 4169/20 for an interdict. He sought an interim order in two parts, firstly, authorizing him to resume his mining and allied operations at Special Grants 7667, 7668, and 7669. Secondly,... More
