This matter was set down as an application for leave to appeal. Before the merits of the application could be entertained two points in limine were raised by the respondent. It is only these two points which are the subject of this judgement. More
On the 21st of September 2022, I granted an extempore judgment dismissing applicant’s claim on the basis of one of the points limine that had been raised. On the 14th of December ,2022 whilst on official vacation, the applicant’s legal practitioner wrote to the Registrar of this court requesting for the written judgment. This is the judgment.
The common cause facts are that, Applicant is a registered Residence Association that represents owners of a block of flats called Zimbabwe Court, situate at stand 408 Avondale West of subdivision A of lot 22 of Block d of Avondale, Salisbury also known... More
Applicant applied to this Court for the reinstatement of a abandoned matter i.e. LC/H/LRA/826/18. At the onset of oral argument 2nd Respondent raised a 2 points in limine which Applicant opposed. More
This is an appeal against a decision by a Disciplinary Authority (DA) appointed by the appellant. (In this judgment the terms DA and Tribunal/Lower Tribunal will be used interchangeably). The respondent is an employee of the appellant. Misconduct charges were preferred against him. Disciplinary proceedings were conducted against him by the DA. At the conclusion of the proceedings the DA acquitted the respondent. The appellant was aggrieved by that outcome and has noted an appeal against that decision. More
For what it is, this judgment is meant to be short. This matter was set down on the unopposed roll on 7 November 2023 for provisional sentence. After hearing counsel for the plaintiff and the defendant, I gave my reasons extempore and granted the following order which was in terms of the draft by the plaintiff: More
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
