Applicant approached this court in terms of s 92B (3) of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01] (The Act) seeking that, the judgment of the Labour Court in case number LC/H/585/21 handed down on 8 April 2022 as judgment number LC/H/89/22 and as varied by the Supreme Court Order SC 380/22 handed down on 28 October 2022 be registered as a judgment of this court. More
This is an opposed chamber application for condonation for non-compliance with r 55 (5) of the Supreme Court Rules 2018, and the reinstatement of the applicants’ appeal under SC 219/23 which was by operation of law deemed abandoned and dismissed in terms of r 55 (6). The reinstatement is being sought in terms of r 70 (2) of the; afore-said rules. More
This plaintiff issued a summons against the defendant claiming payment of an amount just under US$11 000-00. It also claimed the costs of suit on the higher scale and collection commission. The defendant filed a plea, in substance denying that it owed the plaintiff the sum alleged, or at all. It also alleged, among other things, that the plaintiff’s suit was unnecessary and precipitate given that the parties were in continuous discussion with each other and that the defendant was steadily liquidating the outstanding amounts on the plaintiff’s invoices. The defendant further questioned the propriety of the plaintiff claiming both... More
The application is for a review of the disciplinary proceedings as convened by the Respondent against the Applicant. The application is premised on Section 92 EE (1) (c) of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01]. The application is opposed. More
Plaintiff and Defendant were married on 28 June 1991. The marriage was blessed with three children, Tafara David Zhou (born 15 October 1992) (Tafara), Ruvimbo Charity Zhou (born 23 December 1997) (Ruvimbo) and Rugare Ndovisai Zhou (born 18 October 2009) (Rugare). Plaintiff issued out summons for divorce and ancillary relief on 20 September, 2019, on the grounds that the marriage relationship has irretrievably broken down to the extent that it can no longer be salvaged. In her declaration she stated that one of the children, Rugare is still a minor and given that Plaintiff has been staying with her in... More
This judgment is a product of two matters that were consolidated and heard as one. The issues at stake and the interests of the parties involved herein converge. At the centre of the dispute in both cases is an Extra Ordinary General Meeting (EGM or the meeting) that dealt with the business of the fourth respondent in HC 1351/21 (Case 1), and the sixth respondent in HC 1270/21 (Case 2) on 8 February 2021. The applicants in both cases contend that the meeting did not comply with certain provisions of the Companies and Other Business Entities Act (the COBE or... More
By consent of the parties the three matters HC 6525/22, HC 6526/22 and HC 2527 were consolidated and were heard at the same time mainly because the applications in the three files concerned an application for an interpleader. The Applicant in the three matters is the same. The judgment creditors are the same. The judgment debtors are the same. Only the Claimants are different but the legal practitioners representing the parties in each of the matters are the same. The reliefs being sought is essentially the same. More
