The appellants are partners of the law firm practising as Mtetwa&Nyambirai Legal Practitioners (“Mtetwa&Nyambirai”). The first respondent is a legal firm, whose principal is Mark Rujuwa, a former associate at the appellant’s law firm. The second respondent was previously employed by the appellants as an accounts clerk at their law firm. By virtue of his position as an accounts clerk, the second respondent was also a custodian of the keys to the safe ofMtetwa&Nyambirai.
Sometime in February 2022, Mtetwa&Nyambirayi discovered that the second respondent had stolen ZWL$32 000 000.00 from its trust account and converted the same to United States... More
The first respondent is a church organization whereas the appellant is a member of a housing cooperative known as Joseph Musika Housing Cooperative. Although the Housing Cooperative was a party to the proceedings in the court a quo, it has not appealed against the court’sjudgment against it. The second respondent is a government Minister and owner of the state land in dispute. The disputed piece of land is commonly known as Stand Number 16549 Hatcliff Harare (the stand). More
The first appellant is the Minister of Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs,while the second appellant is the Attorney General.The respondent,Nyasha Chiramba ,is a law student who introduces himself as a firm believer in human rights.
Therespondentfiledaconstitutionalapplicationinthecourtaquoforamandamuscompellingtheappellantstocomplywiths106(3)oftheConstitutionofZimbabwe2013 [ “the Constitution”], by initiating the process of enacting the Act contemplated in the subsection. The respondent asserted locus standi to bring the application on the basis that he has an interest in enforcing compliance with the supreme law of the land. More
This is an appeal against the whole judgment of the High Court which confirmed a provisional order that the first and second respondents had satisfied their judgment debt denominated in US Dollars by making payments in RTGs dollars converted at a bank rate of one United States dollar to one RTGS dollar. More
By judgment delivered on 5 October 2022, the High Court [“the court a quo”], dismissed the appellant’s court application made in terms of s 27(1) (c) of the High Court Act [Chapter 7:06] [“the High Court Act”] as read with r 62 of the High Court Rules, 2021, for the review of disciplinary proceedings conducted by the respondents. This appeal is against that judgment. More
The appellants are the guardians of the minor children R. S. W. and C. R. H. M. respectively. In this judgment R. S. W. and C. R. H. M. are jointly referred to as “the children”. Pitted against the appellants are the third respondent, a trust school registered as a non-governmental school in terms of the Education Act [Chapter 25:04] [the “Education Act”], the first respondent who is the headmistress of the school and the second respondent who is the deputy headmaster. The fourth and fifth respondents are the trustees for the time being for the St. Christophers School Trust... More
The applicant received, by way of donation, 51% of the second respondent’s shares in 2011 through the shareholders agreement. This transaction shall be hereinafter called “the 2011 agreement” or the “shareholders agreement”. In 2016, Mr Mutanda sold his shares for the companies to the Government of Zimbabwe. According to the third respondent, the transaction saw the Government of Zimbabwe becoming the major shareholder in the second respondent. However, the applicant is disputing this. In 2020, the third respondent appointed board members for the second respondent. The applicant disputed this and initiated the arbitration proceedings through the letter dated 10 November... More
