This is an appeal against the decision of the Administrative Court (court a quo) in which it set aside the appellant’s decision and allowed a merger of the respondents holding that the merger was not contrary to the public interest and interfering with the penalty which had been imposed on the respondents by the appellant. More
The plaintiff issued summons out of this court claiming the following order
1. An order directing first defendant to accept delivery of 600 bags of pc 15 cement at an address of choice in Harare or Ruwa More
The factual background that gave rise to this application is that, on the 19th of December 2021, as she was at Nyabira Toll Gate, her motor vehicle Mazda BT50 double cab was impounded by ZINARA on the instruction of Zimra for having failed to pay the requisite duty. Aggrieved by this action, applicant filed an application for a spoliation order in this Court under HC 1014/22, which application was unsuccessful for failure to give the requisite notice. More
Appellant was in the employ of the Respondent as Finance and Administration Director. Allegations of misconduct were levelled against in terms of the National Code of Conduct, that is, contravening section 4 (a), it being alleged that he was guilty of gross incompetence or inefficiency in the performance of his duties. The brief allegations were that Appellant had presented a financial report containing incorrect information which was calculated to mislead Respondent’s Board. In the hearing several witnesses were called to testify against the Appellant. It is important to make the observation that none of the witnesses gave any evidence to... More
This is an application in terms of section 14 of the High Court Act, Chapter 7:06 seeking a declaratory order in the following terms;
“1. The application is hereby granted.
2. It is hereby declared that the partnership agreement entered into by and between the parties authorizing applicant and 2nd respondent to use 1st respondent’s
company credentials is valid and binding.
3. 1st respondent shall pay costs of suit at the legal practitioner and client scale.” More
Applicant applied to this Court for condonation of a belated Response. Respondent opposed the applicant.
The basis of the application is set out in applicant’s founding affidavit More
