On 6 April 2023 I ruled that the application by the applicant was not urgent. On 24 April 2023 I received a request for written reasons for that decision. These are they.
Applicant stated that he is the owner of immovable property known as Stand Number 6216(A) Westbrook Park, Kadoma (the property). It is owned through cession title registered with the second respondents. Further that the applicant and his family have resided at the property for the past five years. More
The background to the matter is that the employee approached the Labour Court on a damages claim against the employer despite the fact that the parties had entered into an agreement where they had settled their labour dispute vis what the employer owed the employee. When the matter was set down for hearing the employer defaulted giving rise to a default judgement in favour of the employee. The employer applied for rescission of the default judgement but its application was saddled with irregularities which the employee raised as points in limine. More
The Applicant and the 1st Respondent are engaged in a mining dispute. The default judgment order was served on the Applicant on the 13 of June 2023. She contends that, that is the first day and time she first knew of the matter under HC157/23. As soon as she became aware of the Default Judgment order she mounted an application for the rescission of that judgment under case number HC 1299/23 in this court. More
This is an application in terms of Order 13, r 87 (2) (b) of the High Court Rules, 1971 (then applicable) where the applicants seek to be joined (as fourth and fifth respondents) to proceedings under HC 3727/20. The applicants aver that they have a direct and substantial interest in the issues involved in HC 3727/20. At this juncture, it is relevant to state that Zuva Petroleum Two (Pvt) Ltd brought an application for joinder to the same proceedings under HC 4323/20, which I granted in a judgment delivered as HH 55-23. More
On 11 August 2023 applicants filed their answering affidavit and heads of argument. It is noted that on 3 August 2023 first respondent filed the first notice of opposition, the opposing affidavit of which does not have a date endorsed on by the commissioner of oaths. Contrary to what was agreed and ordered on 4 August 2023, by 17 August 2023 first respondent had not filed anything. It was only after follow ups were made that a supplementary notice of opposition was availed. Strangely the notice of opposition (supplementary) availed is dated 2 August 2023 and the opposing affidavit whose... More
On the 28th of November 2022 the applicant was invited for a disciplinary hearing .He was alleged to have violated Part VI Group 4 of the National Employment Council for the Commercial Sector Employment Code of Conduct and Grievance Procedures (NECCS)( the code). He appeared for the hearing on 7th December 2022 before Designated Officer, one Ndingindi (Ndingindi). On 21st December 2022 Ndingindi made findings and convicted the applicant and penalized the applicant with dismissal. On the 23rd of December 2022 Ndingindi wrote the applicant withdrawing his letter of the 21st of December .On that same date the 23rd of... More
This court has no choice but to rely on the evidence of the plaintiff, who was a party to the agreement, he told the court how he occupied the property being the subject matter of this dispute. He told the court how he paid for the property and produced bank deposit receipts into the deceased’s bank account in South Africa. He occupied this place from 2001 to date. The defendant’s witness, told the court that she is not aware of any payments of rates by the deceased estate, neither is she aware of any rentals being paid by the plaintiff... More
