This is a chamber application for an anti-dissipation interdict in which the applicant wants the respondents restrained from disposing of certain assets that it believes were acquired illegally. The application was made in terms of s 40 of the Money Laundering and Proceeds of Crime Act. More
This is an appeal against the whole judgment of the High Court of Zimbabwe (“the court a quo”) in which a preliminary point that the appellant failed to give the requisite notice in terms s 6 of the State Liabilities Act [Chapter 8:14] as read with s 196 (1) of the Customs and Excise Act [Chapter 23:02] before instituting proceedings against the first respondent was upheld. In the event of success, the appellant prayed for an order that the instant appeal succeeds and that the matter be remitted to the court a quo for it to be heard afresh before... More
The applicant in the case seemed to have employed Winston Churchill’s philosophy that when you have an important point to make, you do not try to be subtle. Instead, you must use a pile driver to hit the point home. You then return to hit it again with a tremendous whack. The applicant took no prisoners in challenging the respondents’ decision on the grounds of gross unreasonableness, irrationality and absence of reasons. In the midst of it, the interpretation of what in the automotive industry is meant by the term semi knocked down kits, is where the dispute between the... More
The matter was placed before me as an appeal against a draft ruling handed down by Labour Officer Madziya J on the 29th of March 2023. The appeal was as indicated filed on the basis of section 128(1) of the Labour Act [Chap 28:01] as amended by the Labour Amendment Act, No.11 of 2023 as also read with rule 19 of the Labour Court Rules, 2017. The appeal was filed on the 7th of September 2023. More
On the 31st August 2023 at Harare, 1st respondent in her capacity as a Designated Agent (DA), issued a determination. She dismissed applicant’s (employee) claim of unlawful termination of employment by 2nd respondent (employer). Appellant then applied for the review of the determination by this Court in terms of section 89(1)(d) & 92 EE of the Labour Act Chapter 28:01 (the Act). Respondent opposed the application. More
There is a banker and client contractual relationship between the parties. The plaintiff (Ramatex) sued the defendant (ACL) for general damages in the sum of US$998 960.00. The circumstances giving rise to the claim are partly common cause. There are 3 issues identified and agreed to by the parties for determination at this trial. These are;
(a) Whether or not ACL submitted the application for the registration of Ramatex’s blocked funds on or before the 30 April 2019 deadline;
(b) Whether the registration of the legacy debt failed as a result of the late submission of the application of the... More
The application placed before me is for quantification of backpays and benefits following the Applicant’s reinstatement into his original position. The application is filed in terms of section 89 of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01] as read with rule 14 of the Labour Court rules, 2017. More
