This an application for condonation for reinstatement of a matter following abandonment. It is opposed.
The background of the matter is that the applicant noted an appeal with this Court sometime in 2022.The respondent duly filed its notice of response as stipulated in the Rules of this Court, Statutory Instrument 150/2017 ( the Rules /S.I. 150/17).Thereafter the applicant’s representatives did not file heads of argument in terms of the Rules. More
Applicant was employed by the Respondents as a Lecturer at the Harare Polytechnic College. She was charged with misconduct it being alleged that she had refused to comply with instructions to be appraised by her superiors at the College. It was also averred inn those charges of misconduct that she had made false reports against two of her supervisors resulting in their arrest and prosecution. Appellant was found guilty and a penalty of dismissal was imposed. Appellant is dissatisfied with this outcome and has approached this Court for relief. I should also mention that Appellant made an application for review... More
: This is a court application for the registration of a caveat on the immovable property being certain piece of land situate in the district of Salisbury called stand 2126 Tynwald South Township of stand 1042 Tynwald Township measuring 220 square metres and held under Deed of Transfer number 257/2023. The first and second respondents are the registered owners of the said property. They are also husband and wife. More
Applicant applied to this Court for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court in terms of Section 92 F (2) of the Labour Act Chapter 28:01 as read with Rule 93 of the Labour Court Rules, 2017.
At the onset of oral argument Respondent applied for upliftment of bar and condonation of belated Response and heads of argument. Applicant opposed the respondent’s application. Respondent submitted that the application for leave to appeal was served on them on 23 April 2024. More
On the 29th December 2023, applicant filed an application in this Court for the review of his dismissal by respondents. The 2nd respondent opposed the application. On the 12th January 2024 the Court dismissed applicant’s points in limine. Whilst the review is still pending, on 9th May 2024 applicant applied for the referral of the matter to the Constitutional Court. Again 1st respondent opposed the application. More
This is an urgent chamber application in which the following order is sought:
“TERMS OF FINAL ORDER SOUGHT
That you show cause to thus Honourable Court why a final order should not be made in the following terms:
1. The first respondent be and is hereby barred from exercising the functions of Corporate Rescue Practitioner for MCA Venture Capital (Pvt) Ltd (under corporate rescue).
2. The first respondent shall pay the costs of this application on the scale of legal practitioner and client in his personal capacity. More
At the onset of oral argument in this Court applicant raised a point in limine which respondents opposed.
“2. No authority to depose to affidavit on behalf of 2nd Respondent.
2.1 The deponent to Respondents; opposing affidavit has no legal authority to depose to same on behalf of 2nd respondent which in terms of section 3 of the Health Service Act (Chapter 15:16), is a corporate body. It is trite that authority to act for a corporate body is required before a natural person’s deposition is accepted.
3. Michael Sande says he is the Acting Secretary for the 2nd respondent... More
