At the onset of oral argument in this Court respondents raised a point in limine which applicant opposed. The point is summarised in respondents opposing affidavit as follows
“2. In limine
The Applicant is approaching this Court without exhausting the Appeals process in that he applied for review of this to this Court without exhausting the remedies provided for in section 10 of the Welfare and Educational Institutions Employers Association Code of conduct which the authority which was used to charge the Applicant.” More
This is an application for review. It is opposed. At the commencement of the hearing two preliminary issues were raised on behalf of the respondent. Firstly, Mr Matsikidze who appeared on behalf of the respondent criticized the grounds for review. He argued that the said grounds are combined grounds of appeal on the merits and review. Secondly , Mr Matsikidze argued that the relief sought is incompetent in that the applicant seeks reinstatement instead of having the decision set aside and a rehearing ordered. In the result it was submitted on behalf of the respondent that the application ought to... More
The applicant appeared before the 1st respondent a Regional Magistrate sitting at Chinhoyi Court, facing a charge of rape in contravention of s65 of the Criminal Code.The trial proceeded with the 2nd respondent leading evidence until it closed its case. At the close of the 1st respondent’s case, an application was made on behalf of the applicant for discharge at the close of the state case. After considering both the applicant and the 1st respondent’s submissions, the 1st respondent dismissed the application and ordered the trial to continue. In dismissing the application the 2nd respondent found that there was prima... More
The appellant entered into a 20 year lease agreement with the 1st respondent. The lease agreement was for appellant to lease a commercial property known as Marbles Bar and Butchery otherwise known as stand number 13586 Glasglow Road Industrial Sites Chinhoyi “the property”.
According to the appellant on the 3rd of December 2022 the 1st respondent broke the entrance locks and changed the keys to all the doors on the property thereby despoiling the appellant. The 1st respondent did not have any lawful authority to act as he did. The founding affidavit then canvassed a number of issues that were... More
The applicant who is a registered owner of the piece of land as described above, some time in 2022 applied to a provincial town planning Mashonaland West for a sub-division permit which application is attached as Annexure B to this paper. In response he was advised that the land had been acquired by the Respondent as per government gazette attached as Annexure E. A perusal of the second Government Gazette attached as Annexure D shows that the property was acquired for agricultural purposes on the 6th of April 2012 in accordance with section 16B of the amended Zimbabwe 1980 Constitution.... More
This is an appeal against the whole judgment of the High Court Bulawayo, (court a quo), handed down on 13 October 2022. The court a quo dismissed the appellant’s application for the setting aside of the sale by auction, of a stockpile of iron ore fines, on the basis of actio rei vindicatio. More
On the 13th December 2022 at Harare, the Exemptions Committee (EC) of the NEC Rural District Councils issued a determination. It ordered appellant (employer) to reinstate respondent (employee) or pay her damages in lieu of reinstatement. The employer then appealed the determination to this Court in terms of section 92 D of the Labour Act Chapter 28:01 hereafter called the “Act”. The employee opposed the appeal. More
