The parties appeared before this court arguing over agreement of sale of a certain piece of immovable property known as Remaining Extent Of Lot 301 of Greendale situate in the District of Salisbury measuring 6092 sqm including vested roadway held under Deed of transfer No 450/89.The respondent deed of transfer is annexed to the opposing affidavit marked annexure B1-B3.The immovable property is registered in the respondent is also described in B2 as “ Certain piece of land being the remaining extent of lot 301 of Greendale situate in the District of Salisbury measuring 6092 sqm including vested roadway” A dispute... More
The applicant seeks an order confirming that the agreement of sale which it entered into with the first respondent in respect of certain immovable property is valid and binding. Pursuant to such confirmation, it seeks an order evicting the first respondent and all those claiming their right on occupation through her from the said residential property. The property in question was identified as Stand No. 1191 Mandara Township, Zvishavane (“the property”). More
The applicants` counsel failed to capitalise on the facility provided by rule 53 (2) of the High Court (Commercial Division) Rules SI 123-20 (“the Commercial Court Rules”) to manage postponements. As a result, applicants failed to meet a set down commitment at 12:00 noon on 27 June 2024.I proceeded to strike its matter off the roll with costs. Applicants had in that matter sought an order to place respondent under corporate rescue in terms of section 124 of the Insolvency Act [Chapter 6:07]. More
[1] This is an appeal against the order of the Magistrates Court sitting at the Bulawayo Magistrates Court. The appellant, Thembani Lunga, is a tenant at Flat 5 Sanlee Court, Bulawayo ("Flat 5"). The appellant was initially represented by a firm of legal practitioners, who have since renounced agency. The respondent, Rita Yvonne Sher, is the owner of Sanlee Court. The appellant and the respondent concluded a lease agreement in respect of Flat 5. In terms of this lease agreement, the appellant had to pay a rent of USD250.00 a month and his pro rata share of the operating costs.... More
1. This is an appeal against the whole judgement of the High Court (“the court a quo”) in which it upheld the respondent`s special plea of prescription and dismissed the appellant’s claim. More
This is an appeal against the decision of the respondent employer’s appeals committee which upheld the guilty verdict and the dismissal penalty which was meted out on the appellant by the disciplinary committee following allegations of fraud in breach of SI 124/23. More
This is an appeal against the appellant’s dismissal from respondent’s employ. The following are the grounds of appeal and I quote:
‘1. The appeals authority erred at law in making a finding that the Appellant was guilty of failing to obey an order on the 8th November 2021 when allegations against the appellant on the first charge was that Appellant disobeyed an order issued on the 29th October 2021.
2. The appeals authority erred at law in failing to make a finding that the charge of willful disobedience to a lawful order was unsustainable to the extent the Appellant had... More
