The applicant’s discharge came about following an incident which occurred whilst he was performing his duties. The applicant was fixing a police vehicle when brake fluid spilt into his right eye. The damage caused could not be reversed resulting in the applicant losing sight in that eye. March 2015 and the applicant was found to be fit for full duty. Challenges experienced in the discharge of his duties led to a second board which was convened on 14th February 2019. The Medical Board noted that the applicant had right eye blindness with no light perception. He was experiencing pain and... More
The order sought follows a default judgment involving same parties which was issued under case number 4541/21. At the commencement of the application the respondents raised an objection in what they term dirty hands approach. They argued that the applicants are fugitives from justice and as such could not have audience with the court. Specifically that they are on warrants of arrests. Initially the applicants argued that the said warrants were dealt with and respondents were then supposed to offer proof to that effect, either in the form of a magistrates court record or otherwise. With the events unfolding it... More
"there was a society of men among us, bred up from their youth in the art of proving, by words multiplied for the purpose, that white is black, and black is white, according as they are paid. To this society all the rest of the people are slaves.”
"In pleading, they studiously avoid entering into the merits of the cause; but are loud, violent, and tedious, in dwelling upon all circumstances which are not to the purpose. For instance, in the case already mentioned; they never desire to know what claim or title my adversary has to my cow; but... More
This is a purported application for condonation for late noting an application for review. It is opposed. I say “purported” for the following reason.
This Court in Judgment Number LC/H/144/22 handed down on 3rd June 2022 determined a matter between the parties. The applicant has not appealed that judgment to the Supreme
Court. Instead he has approached this Court for “review”. The application is opposed with counsel for the respondent arguing that not only does the Court lack jurisdiction to review its own judgment, but the application is frivolous and vexatious. More
In an appeal to this court the respondent raised points in limine mainly to the effect that the appeal before the court was improperly before it. This is so taking into account the fact that the appellant changed the appeal grounds that she used when she lodged her application for condonation of late filing of appeal. Rule 22(2) Labour Court rules makes it clear that the condonation application shall have the draft notice attached to it. The essence in so attaching the draft is for the court to be able to glean whether or not it is a merited appeal... More
This application was placed before the court as an urgent court application in terms of the proviso to r 59(6), as read with r 65(8) of the High Court Rules, 2021. The timelines within which further pleadings were to be filed were truncated in terms of the proviso to r 59(6). More
On 6 March, 2008 Khaled Kassim Joosab (“Joosab”), the first respondent herein, leased his property, Number 4, 19 Robert Mugabe Street, Rusape (“the property”) to the applicant, one Gladys Svosve (“Gladys”). The lease which Joosab and Gladys signed was to endure for one full year. Gladys was to pay a monthly rental of ZWL$2 200 000 000 for her occupation and use of the property. More
