The grounds of appeal were six-fold as follows,
“1. The DA erred at law by failing to consider that 1st applicant was not on a fixed contract and he did not confirm that he was on a fixed contract.
2. The DA erred in failing to consider that respondent failed to prove that 1st applicant was on fixed term contract.
3. The DA erred in failing to consider that applicants substantiated their claims of under payment of wages.
4. The DA failed to consider that there is no doctors’ report which stated that 1st applicant was fit to work as... More
This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court (the court a quo) which dismissed the appellant’s appeal against conviction on 3 counts of sexually related crimes against minors. More
This judgment is rendered pursuant to an application for absolution from the instance made by the defendants at the close of the plaintiffs’ case. The plaintiffs’ claim is multifaceted, arising from Debt Recovery Joint Venture and Management Agreements (the joint venture agreements) between the plaintiffs and the defendant. The defendants are alleged to have breached that joint venture agreements in numerous ways. More
This is an appeal against the decision of the Labour Officer who held that respondent employee was unlawfully dismissed by the employer and that she was entitled to 36 months damages for loss of employment, payment of her leave days and payment of acting allowances due to her. More
This is a special case in terms of Rule 52 of the High Court Rules, 2021. According to the agreed facts the first defendant acted in breach of contract when they diverted the plaintiff’s funds from the plaintiff’s bank account to their personal accounts. This breach of contract happened between 3 November 2016 and 19 February 2019 and the terms of contract breached are outlined in paragraph 7 of the agreed facts. Paragraph 11 of the same facts also show that the defendants also admitted liability and paid the plaintiff the amount due in RTGS at the rate of 1:1... More
This is an appeal against the whole judgment of the High Court (the court a quo) dated 25 October 2023 in which it dismissed the appellant’s application for a declaratur. More
The applicant is a company duly registered in Zimbabwe. It is a vendor for the design, configuration and commissioning of pre-payment metering technology (PMT) used in the buying and selling of electricity tokens in 13 Southern African countries. The first respondent is a body corporate established in terms of s 5 of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act [Chapter 22:23] (the Act). It is mandated by s 54 (10) (c) as read with s 96 of the Act to, inter alia, investigate anomalies that may arise in public procurement in Zimbabwe. The second respondent is a company... More
