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
This is an urgent application for stay of execution of a decision made against the applicant by the respondent wherein the respondent demoted the applicant . The application is opposed. This is not the first time that the applicant has approached this Court with a similar application. In January 2024 the applicant appeared before this Court ( Honourable Musariri J). Judgment in that matter, LC/H/2/24 ,was issued on 15th January 2024.The Court in the earlier application dismissed it on the basis that the applicant failed to show that he would suffer irreparable damage should the demotion not be stayed pending... More
The appellant appeals against an order handed down by the High Court (the court a quo) on 29 June 2021. The court a quo dismissed his application for condonation and upliftment of the bar. The bar arose from the appellant’s failure to serve his appearance to defend on the respondents within 24 hours, in breach of r 49 of the then subsisting High Court rules, 1971. These rules were repealed and replaced by the new rules, High Court rules, 2021 on 23 July 2021. More
This is an application for condonation for late noting of an application for rescission of judgment. The matter is unopposed to the extent that as at date of set down the respondent did not put its response to the matter. It was only on the set down date that it tried to show cause why it did not put in its response. Its argument was that the pleadings attendant to the matter had found their way to its junk mail and when it belatedly realised that development it was already out of timed to file its response. More
On the 30th November 2022 at Harare, Designated Agent (DA) T. Marisa dismissed applicants’ (employees) claims of unlawful termination of employment by respondent (employer). The employees then applied to this Court for the review of the determination. The application was made in terms of Sections 89(1) of the Labour Act hereafter called the Act. The employer opposed the application More
