The applicant alleges that on 7 September 2020, he entered into an agreement of sale with the respondent in respect of Lot 4 of Geluk Farm, Beatrice, aforesaid. In addition, the applicant avers that the respondent breached the agreement by failing to make payments as agreed between the parties, resulting in the applicant cancelling the agreement. She was given notice of cancellation by letter dated 27 September 2021. According to the applicant, when the respondent received the notice of cancellation, she asked for extension of time so that she could rectify the breach. More
The appellant is employed by the City of Harare (“the city council”) as Deputy Director of Housing and Community Services and was at the time of the alleged commission of the offence the Acting Director of Housing and Community Services when the incumbent was attending a week-long workshop in Kadoma. In June 2021, he was arraigned before the first respondent facing a charge of “criminal abuse of duty as a public officer, in contravention of s 174 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23]” (the Criminal Law Code). The allegations levelled against him are that he irregularly... More
This is an application wherein the applicant seeks an order as follows:
1. The decisions of the 1st and 2nd respondents with regards to the seizure of the applicant’s motor vehicle Registration No. AEA 5210 and the goods therein be and is hereby set aside.
2. The respondents be and are hereby directed to release applicant’s motor vehicle and the seized goods upon payment of the relevant import duty.
3. That respondents pay costs of suit on an attorney and client scale. More
After hearing argument by the respective parties, I dismissed the application with costs on an attorney and client scale. I now give my reasons. On 20 January 2020, the applicant filed an urgent chamber application and submitted that, in 2002, he obtained rights to extract minerals in Mvuma through special grants SG 2854 and SG 2858. Before the expiry of the special grants in 2011, he wrote to the second respondent through the office of the Mining Commissioner, seeking their renewal. Thereafter, on 20 April 2018, the second respondent acknowledged receipt of the applicant’s letter, and indicated that applicant’s file... More
This is an appeal against the decision of the Hearing Officer finding the Appellant guilty of misconduct culminating in his dismissal from employment. The brief facts are that the Appellant was employed as the Acting Chief Executive Officer of Respondent. He also held the post of Head of Finance. This means that he held the two posts simultaneously. An audit was carried out following reports of misconduct. The audit report made certain recommendations amongst of which it was stated that Appellant had failed to discharge his duties both as Head of Finance and Acting Chief Executive Officer and the Board... More
The background to this application can be summarized as follows:
[3] The applicant was the respondent’s employee since 1993. In 2012 the applicant was dismissed from employment after being charged for being absent from duty without leave and fraud. A disciplinary hearing was conducted in September 2012 after which the applicant was dismissed from employment. More
This is an appeal against both conviction and sentence. It was triggered by the conviction of the appellants on a charge of theft as defined in s 113(1)(a)(b) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23] and the sentence of 5 years imprisonment passed on each of them of which a total of 3 years imprisonment was suspended on the usual conditions of good behaviour and restitution to leave an effective sentence of 2 years imprisonment. More
