The applicant is facing three counts of robbery as defined in s 126 of the Criminal Law Codification and Reform Act [Chapter 9:23] also known as the Criminal Law Code. The Form 242 reflects that the applicant is jointly charged with 5 other accused persons: Accused 1 - John Kamba; Accused 3 - Archford Chaitonga; Accused 4 - Chrispen Marimo; Accused 5 - Peter Kudzanayi; and Accused 6 - Tinashe Tapoma. The applicant is reflected as accused 2. More
This is an urgent chamber application for the stay of execution of an order of this court wherein applicant and others were ordered to pay costs. The applicant is challenging the execution of the court order on various grounds.
1.In that the matter is being irregularly executed as the order for costs was meant for applicant and others to pay costs only if the application was opposed but it was not opposed.
2.That the bill of costs in HC 1519/21 should not have been taxed at an attorney and client scale and that it is therefore invalid.
3.That the order... More
On the last day of hearing of this application, I delivered an interim order pending the determination of the present application to the effect that:
“That pending the handing down of the judgment under this urgent chamber application, the 1st and 3rd Respondents are hereby directed to stay execution of judgment under HC 5790/22 against the applicant.” More
In an application for the review of the decision of the Registrar of Labour the 4th respondent raised a point in limine to the effect that it had been improperly joined to the proceedings. In response to that the applicant mentioned that there was no misjoinder taking into account the fact that it was the objection by the 4th respondent at the Registrar which birthed the Registrar’s refusal to register applicant’s CBA. It is clear from the record that had it not been for the objections by the 4th respondent the applicant’s CBA would have been registered by the Registrar.... More
This is an appeal against the whole judgment of the High Court(the court a quo) sitting at Harare, dated 30 November 2021, setting aside para 84 A of the arbitral award given under the hands of arbitrators retired Justice A. M. Ibrahim, retired Justice M. H. Chinhengo and Advocate F. Girach on 1 March 2021. Under para 84 A of the award the arbitrators declared that the agreement of procurement entered into between the parties did not have the prior approval of the Procurement Regulation Authority of Zimbabwe (PRAZ) as required by s 15 (1) and (2) of the Public... More
The applicant National Railways of Zimbabwe is a statutory corporate body established in terms of the Railways Act [Chapter 13:09]. The first respondent Patnah Trading (Pvt) Ltd is a duly incorporated and registered company in accordance with the laws of Zimbabwe. The second respondent City of Harare is a body corporate established in terms of the City of Harare (Private) Act, [Chapter 29:04]. More
Aggrieved by the decision of this court in HB 73/19, the Applicant filed a Notice of Appeal against that judgment in the Supreme Court under Case No. SC299/19. On 19 July 2023, the Supreme Court removed the appeal from the roll because the Appeal had been deemed dismissed due to failure to provide adequate security for the Respondent’s costs of appeal. More
