At the onset of oral argument in this Court respondent raised 2 points in limine which appellant opposed. Respondent abandoned the other points mentioned in his papers. The points shall be dealt with herein ad seriatim. More
The applicants and 1st respondent entered into a sale agreement on 8 April 2015 wherein the 1st respondent sold the property in question. The applicants in turn sold the property to one Sinikiwe Charambeni. In November 2019 the 1st respondent issued summons seeking the cancellation of the sale agreement between him and the applicants on allegations that the applicants had breached the agreement. The 1st respondent subsequently obtained a default order under HC 2611/19 which order cancelled the Agreement of Sale. The applicants became aware of this development after Charambeni advised them of her eviction from the property. The applicants... More
This is an application for review. This follows the dismissal of the applicant by respondent following disciplinary proceedings. At the conclusion of the proceedings a default judgment was entered against the applicant. The applicant asserts that he was there and indeed initially the record shows that he was present. He says he excused himself and left the proceedings in order for him to go and collect his lawyer who was failing to locate the venue where the proceedings were being conducted. When he returned with his lawyer, he realized that the proceedings had continued during his absence. A determination was... More
This is an application for the setting aside of a deed of settlement that was executed by the applicant and respondent in order to solve their labour dispute. The deed of settlement was duly signed by the two parties on 9 May 2016. The application is opposed by the respondent. More
The applicant was married to the late Duggan. They later divorced. During the subsistence of their marriage they acquired certain five pieces of property known as stands 1 to 5 of Wilmar Park, Banket “the properties” registered in their joint names. The properties are at the centre of this dispute. More
This is an unopposed application for leave to appeal to the Constitutional Court, made in terms of r 32 of the Constitutional Court Rules, 2016 (the Rules), against the decision of the Supreme Court (the court a quo) in Judgment No. SCB 03-24. The court a quo allowed, with costs, the first respondent’s appeal against the decision of the High Court in HB 102-23. It further set aside that judgment and substituted it with an order upholding the first respondent’s preliminary point on jurisdiction and declining jurisdiction to hear the matter. More
On the 27th August 2018 at Harare, Designated Agent (DA) M Manyika made a determination. He dismissed appellant’s (employee) claim of unfair termination of employment by respondent (employer). The employee then appealed the determination to this Court in terms of Section 92D of the Labour Act Chapter 28:01. More
