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
Appellant appealed to this Court against his dismissal from employment by Respondent. The appeal is provided for by the Public Service Regulations S.I. 01/2000 in its section 51 (1) a&b. Respondent opposed the appeal.
The grounds of appeal were nine-fold. However some of the grounds raise reviewable issues which cannot be dealt with in this appeal. The remaining grounds of appeal basically challenge the main finding by the disciplinary authority that appellant committed the act of misconduct as charged. The charge laid by the respondent’s letter dated 20th May 2020 was “ Improper and Incompetent performance of duties.” More
This is an application for review in which the applicant is challenging the ruling of the first respondent which dismissed his exception to the criminal charges that he is facing for contravening s 184(1)(c) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act (the Code). The ruling was handed down on 21 November 2022. The applicant claims that the ruling was only made available to him on 12 December 2022. More
On 13 May 2016, the plaintiff issued summons against the defendant, claiming the following:
“a) Payment in the total sum of ($30 286 747.86) Thirty Million Two Hundred and Eighty Six Thousand Seven Hundred and Forty Seven United States Dollars and Eighty Six Cents.
b) Interest on the above amount from 15 February 2016 being date of demand to date of full payment.
c) Costs of suit.
Being payment for architectural services rendered by Plaintiff to defendant at Defendant’s specific request and instance during the period extending from (sic) to 2013 in Victoria Falls, which amount despite demand remains due... More
It is common cause that there is a business relationship between applicant and 2nd respondent. Applicant and 1st respondent have a contract for the supply of coal to applicant. On the other hand applicant has a similar contract with 2nd respondent. First respondent has a contract with 2nd respondent for the mining of coal destined for the foreign market. There is a clause in this contract which bars the 2nd respondent from unconditionally selling coal to the applicant. More
This is a bail application lodged by the applicant after his first application was refused by this court. The first application was refused on the 3 November 2022. The applicant, who is jointly charged with other persons, now seeks bail based on changed circumstances. The applicant and his co-accused are charged with one count of robbery as defined in section 126 (b) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23] (“the Criminal Code)”. More
The applicant and the respondent were candidates in the Chinhoyi Municipality ward 4 elections held on the 23rd of August 2023. The respondent was declared the duly elected Councillor for the ward on the following day, the 24th. More
