This judgment is in respect of an appeal which is cited by the appellant employee as an appeal against the verdict of the General Manager Appeals Authority dated 20 October 2023 and the NEC Appeals Committee decision of 17 November 2023. More
This is an appeal against the decision of the National Hearing Committee which upheld the decision of the Hearing Committee.
The brief facts are that Appellant was employed by the Respondent. He is alleged to have inflated his overtime claims. He was charged and brought before the Hearing Committee which found him guilty and recommended his dismissal. Dissatisfied with this decision, Appellant appealed to the National Hearing Committee which proceeded to uphold the decision of the Hearing Committee. Appellant has now approached this Court for relief. More
The applicant has approached this court seeking to be admitted to bail pending trial in terms of s 117A of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act [Chapter 09:07]. He is facing a charge of robbery contrary to s 126(1) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23]. In terms of s 50(1) (d) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe, the applicant has a constitutional right to be admitted to bail. He should be denied bail if there are compelling reasons to show that his admission to bail will defeat the interests of justice. More
The applicant and the second respondent as named in the heading are duly registered companies in terms of the laws of Zimbabwe. The first and third respondents are statutory juristic entities created respectively under the Rural District Council Act [Chapter 23:13] and the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act [Chapter 22:23]. The applicant did not seek any relief against the third respondent which was cited as an interested party that superintends public procurement by procuring authorities in Zimbabwe as defined in that legislation. The dispute which has led to the applicant filing this review application as contended by... More
The parties in this matter have been engaged in protracted litigation that commenced with the plaintiff issuing summons against the defendant in May 2016. In the summons, the claim is stated as follows:
a) “Payment in the total sum of ($30 286 747.86) Thirty Million Two Hundred and Eighty-Six Thousand Seven Hundred and Forty-Seven United States Dollars and Eighty-Six Cents.
b) Interest on the above amount from 15 February 2016 being date of demand to date of full payment.
c) Costs of suit.
Being payment for architectural services rendered by Plaintiff to defendant at Defendant’s specific request and instance during... More
The background to this matter is that on 20 February 2024 the respondent as applicant in case number HCBC 371/24 obtained against the applicant as respondent a provisional order from this court (per NDLOVU J), whose interim relief is couched as follows:
Pending determination of this matter, the Applicant is granted the following relief -
The Respondent be and are (sic) hereby ordered and directed to allow the Applicant to take delivery of 700 tonnes of coke in terms of the Memorandum of Understanding of the 30th December 2022. More
