Applicants applied to this Court for the review of their retrenchment from employment by respondents. The application was made in terms of Section 89(1) (d1) of the Labour Act Chapter 28:01 hereafter called the Act. Respondents opposed the application. More
The contest for the seat of member of parliament for the Bikita East Constituency in the August 2023 harmonized elections was a two-horse pitting the petitioner and the respondent. They did so on the tickets of the Zimbabwe African National Union (Patriotic Front) (ZANU PF) and the Citizens Coalition for change (CCC) parties respectively. At the conclusion of that election the respondent was declared duly elected having garnered 9880 votes against the petitioner’s 7544 votes. The petitioner seeks a nullification of the result of that election. He claims that these results are not a true reflection of the will of... More
On the 7th May 2024 at Harare Arbitrator FV Marovanyika issued an award. She upheld 1st respondent’s (employee) claim of constructive dismissal from employment by appellant (employer). The employer then appealed to this Court in terms; of Section 98 (10) of the Labour Act Chapter 28:01 hereafter called the Act. More
This is an application for review in terms of which the applicants seek the setting aside of the decision of the fourth respondent rendered on 13 May 2022 under ACC 26/21 and judgment number AC 7/22. Additionally, the applicants also seek costs of suit against the first, second and third respondents jointly and severally, the one paying the others to be absolved. More
Applicant submitted that respondent’s opposing affidavit was not properly commissioned because it does not show the date when the Commissioner of Oaths signed it.
Applicant further submitted that the typed date above the deponent’s signature is not enough. More
This is an appeal against the whole judgment of the High Court (the court a quo) sitting at Harare handed down on 31 January 2023 wherein the court
a quo dismissed the appellant`s claim that certain loans advanced to the first respondent be repaid in United States dollars. More
The first and second applicants share certain things in common. They seek the same relief against the first and second respondents. They were both shot at and injured by members of the Zimbabwe Republic Police on 22 February 2018. They both instituted claims for general and special damages before this court under HC 11467/18 and HC 11469/18 respectively. In their defence, the respondents herein raised the defence of prescription as part of their plea to the plaintiffs’ claims. More
