The Applicant is a former employee of the Respondent. He was employed as a Senior Auditor for the period of June 2008 to October 2018. The Respondent is a Public Office created in terms of the Audit Office Act, [Cap 22:18] and Section 309 of the Constitution.
It is charged with the primary oversight/assurance role by ensuring accountability within the three arms of government. The application placed before the court has been styled as an application for an order compelling the Respondent to comply with S 51(1) Public Service Regulations 1 of 2000. The Applicant has not outlined under which... More
The delay in hand down of the judgement is sincerely regretted. This is an application for quantification of back pay/salary arrears and benefits. The application was filed pursuant to a judgment of the Supreme Court handed down on 24th November. The Supreme Court, through the judgment, allowed with costs the appeal against Applicant’s dismissal. As a result the court set aside and substituted this court’s judgment as well as the hearing officer’s determination of guilty on the charge as levelled. The Applicant was to be reinstated to his original position without loss of salary and benefits from the date of... More
This is an appeal against the respondent’s dismissal of the appellant from its employ.
At the commencement of the hearing a point in limine was raised on behalf of the appellant. The point was that there was no company resolution authorizing one Takunda Timbe to depose to the opposing affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent. The respondent too had preliminary issues for consideration by the Court. These had to do with propriety of the grounds of appeal and the appellant’s prayer. These will be considered after the one raised on behalf of the appellant has been considered. More
This is an application by the applicants seeking condonation of late noting of an application for recession of court order number LC/H/ORD/98/15.
The applicants in their draft order however seek not only the setting aside of LC/H/ORD/98/15 but also the setting aside of a judgment in case number LC/H/28/2017 and awards by arbitrators who had also dealt with the matter before it was placed before the Labour Court. More
The appellant appeals against the dismissal of his appeal against conviction and sentence by the High Court (“the court a quo”) on 21 May 2019. On 11 July 2016, the appellant was convicted by a Regional Magistrate (the trial court) at Harare of one count of rape. He was sentenced to 14 years’ imprisonment of which 4 years imprisonment was suspended for 5 years on the customary conditions of future good conduct. Dissatisfied, he unsuccessfully appealed to the court a quo, against both conviction and sentence. More
This is an interlocutory appeal against the judgment of the High Court (“the court a quo”) dismissing the appellant’s application for recusal of the presiding judge in the court a quo. The appeal is brought without leave as the question of leave does not arise. This is because the dismissal of an application for recusal has the effect of a final and definitive order. In Moch v Nedtravel 1996 (3) SA 1 (A) the Appellate Court held that no leave is required in such an interlocutory appeal. No issues arise from that observation in this case. I therefore proceed to... More
[ 1] This dispute traces its origin to the Land Reform Programme. For a recap on the purpose and background to that programme, see BHUNU JA`s concise treatise in TBIC Investments (Private) Limited & Anor v Kennedy Mangenje & 5 Ors SC 13-18.
[ 2] At stake herein is a one-hundred-hectare tract of state land located in the environs east of Harare. The applicant (“N-Frays”) is a land developer. Its objects in such capacity include securing vacant (farm) land and taking all necessary steps to establish thereon a residential township.
[ 3] First respondent (“the Minister”) is an administrative authority... More
