This is an application for review against the proceedings of the Respondent’s disciplinary committee that was conducted on 14 September 2022.The applicant was subsequently dismissed on 15 September 2022 More
This is an appeal against part of the judgment of the High Court (the court a quo) dated 14 September 2022. The court a quo ordered the appellant to pay the second respondent the sum of $885 875.00 together with interest thereon at the prescribed rate per annum from 1 October 2010 to the date of full and final payment. It further ordered the second respondent to pay the appellant a sum of $34 454.00 together with interest thereon at the prescribed rate and holding over damages. More
This appeal arises from the dismissal, in the court a quo, of a summary judgment application in which the appellant and respondent herein were applicant and respondent respectively. The common cause facts are as follows; - on 20 August 2021, the appellant Goromonzi RDC, issued an enforcement order against the respondent Precious Gwande following irregular development activities at Zimbiru Business Centre, Ward 4 Domboshava, a planned area under their authority on which she had constructed an unauthorised structure which she was running as a clinic. The structure included a boundary wall. More
In a judgment issued on 27 July 2023, this Court issued a judgment with the following Order: “1. The application for confirmation of the draft ruling is granted.
2. The draft ruling of Gracious Rutendo Chirendo N.O. is confirmed with the following amendment:
a. The claim for unlawful termination of the relocated fixed term contract is hereby granted.
b. The claimant shall be entitled to damages for the unexpired term of contract.’
3. Parties are hereby ordered to file submissions in respect of mitigation of damages and non-payment of salaries within ten (10) days from the date of this order.... More
This is an appeal against part of the judgment of the High Court (the court a quo) sitting at Masvingo handed down on 1 June 2022 in which the court a quo granted the first respondent’s claim for damages for loss of business and the replacement value of her commuter omnibus. More
This is an application wherein applicant seeks the following relief:
“1. The 1st respondent’s action instituted by summons under case HC 411/13 be and is hereby dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous and vexatious.
2. The 1st respondent shall pay the costs of suit on an attorney and client scale.” More
At the onset of oral argument in this Court respondent raised 2 (two) points in limine which applicant opposed.
The points shall be dealt with ad seriatim More
