The first respondent filed summons against the applicant and the second respondent on 12 November 2021 jointly and severally one paying the other to be absolved claiming for:
(i) Damages in the sum of US$70 000 or equivalent in local currency at the prevailing official rate at the time of payment.
(ii) Interest thereon at 10% per annum from the date of summons to the date of final payment.
(iii) Costs of suit.
The applicant was served with the summons on 20 November 2021. Applicant filed its notice of appearance to defend and request for further particulars on 24 November... More
On the 10th July 2017 at Mutare, applicant in her capacity as a Designated Agent issued a ruling. She ordered 1st respondent (employer) to “restart the (retrenchment) process afresh.” The 2nd to 37th respondents were the employees who had been retrenched. Apparently, the employer did not comply with the ruling. Applicant then applied to this Court for the confirmation of her ruling in terms of section 93(5a) of the Labour Act Chapter 28:01, hereafter called the Act. More
This is an application for condonation for late noting of response to an appeal noted on behalf of the respondents. Before the application could be argued three (4) preliminary issues were raised on behalf of the respondents. These are that (i) the applicant used Form LC3 instead of FORM LC 1;(ii) the application is not on notice to the other party ;(iii) the application has no legally recognized respondents and (iv) the relief being sought by the applicant is incompetent. More
The plaintiff issued out summons against the 1st defendant on 25th June 2019 in which it claimed the following:-
“1. Eviction of the defendant and all those claiming through him from Mapari Ranch otherwise known as Lot 4 Devuli Ranch, held under Deed of Transfer 5251/92 within 7 days of service of the order.
2. Failing compliance with paragraph 1 above an order that, the Messenger of Court/Sheriff of Zimbabwe in charge of Masvingo together with the Zimbabwe Republic Police at the nearest Police Station in Bikita area or Masvingo District be and are hereby directed to evict the defendants... More
This is an application to review the disciplinary proceedings conducted against the applicant which proceedings, the applicant refused to participate in.
The application is premised on three grounds which are briefly stated hereunder:
a)The suspension letter was improper as it failed to state reasons and grounds of suspension
b) Conflict of interest
c) Failure by the disciplinary committee to accord the applicant the right to Legal representation. More
The plaintiff’s claim is based on contract between the parties. It is the plaintiff’s case that the defendant gave the plaintiff a sole mandate instruction to carry out design and performance of all contractual works in relation to the development and upgrade of the defendant’s property in Avondale. Having accepted the mandate, the plaintiff commenced work in October 2020. The instruction, inter alia, included feasibility studies, preliminary works, project costing budget, permit applications, roadworks designs, sewer drainage designs and construction of buildings. Plaintiff said it was a material term of the agreement for the defendant to pay the plaintiff for... More
Plaintiff and defendant were married on 2 September 1978 under the then Marriage Act [Chapter 5:11] as evidenced by the marriage certificate a copy of which was tendered as an exhibit. The marriage was blessed with three children, Blessing T. Shiriyapenga (born 25 September 1979), Obrian O. Shiriyapenga (born 4 July 1962) and Obey T. Shiriyapenga (born 11 December 1985). On 21 October 2021 plaintiff issued out summons for divorce and ancillary relief. In her declaration she averred that the marriage of the parties has irretrievably broken down and there is no prospect of restoration of a normal marriage relationship... More
