This matter was set down for hearing on the opposed roll on 8 June 2022. On that date, respondent had not served applicant with her heads of argument which were said to have been filed on the 25th of January 2022. Applicant therefore raised a preliminary point to the effect that respondent is barred for non-compliance with r59 (20) of SI 202/2021 for failure to serve her heads of argument immediately after filing of the aforesaid heads of argument. More
The appellant brings an appeal against the whole judgment of the Labour Court (the court a quo), which upheld the Appeal Officer’s decision confirming the Hearing Officer’s determination dismissing the appellant from employment. More
This matter was placed before this court in terms of Order 32 r 5 (5) of the Magistrates Court (Civil) Rules, 2019 (the Rules). It is a spin-off from a matter that was determined by the court a quo, in which the applicant herein was the defendant and the first respondent herein was plaintiff. The matter concerned some claims that were made by the first respondent against the applicant in the court a quo, in connection with a lease agreement that subsisted between the parties. The court found in favour of the first respondent and ordered the applicant to pay... More
The plaintiff issued summons seeking transfer of Stand 3976, 59th Street, New Canaan, Highfield, Harare. The house is the subject matter of a long standing dispute between two families. It is common cause that the house is registered in the name of the second defendant Grace Mandaza and her late husband Joel Mandaza. However, it is the circumstances under which it came to be so registered that have caused the dispute to be placed before this court. More
This is an application for condonation of late filing of an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. Applicant intends to appeal to the Supreme Court against part of the Labour Court decision which quantified what was due to the estate of the late Dikinya who was unlawfully dismissed by ZIMNAT on allegations of misconduct. Applicant is however out of time by 14 days to make the leave application hence the instant condonation application. The condonation application is opposed by ZIMNAT. More
In the real world, to err is human. Even those tasked to uphold justice, as humans are not infallible. Rule 29 of the High Court rules, S.I. 202 of 2021, was designed to cater for such scenarios. It gives all the stakeholders in a civil matter an opportunity to amend mistakes in deserving situations in the interest of justice. Instances upon which this rule can be invoked are well spelt out under its provisions. In that regard, this is an opposed application brought in terms of this rule, rule 29 (1)(a) in particular, for the recession of an order of... More
The facts relevant for the determination of this matter are that the applicant, after being aggrieved by the decision of the High Court (the courta quo), duly filed a notice of appeal to this Court on 19 October 2022 under case number SC 529/22. In its notice of appeal, the applicant tendered security for the respondents’ costs of appeal ‘in an amount agreed between the parties failing such agreement in an amount determined by the registrar’.The tender was made as a requirement under r55 (2) of theRules. Pursuant to the tender and on 26 October 2022, the applicant’s legal practitioner... More
