The applicant and the respondent are duly incorporated companies, the applicant according to the laws of Lebanon, and the respondent according to the laws of Zimbabwe. The applicant avers that the respondent is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Mineral Marketing Corporation of Zimbabwe (MMCZ) a body corporate created by a statute of the same name, [Chapter 21:04]. The respondent averred on the contrary that it is wholly owned by the Ministry of Mines and not MMCZ. Nothing turns on the ownership of the respondent because of the nature of the relief sought. Suffice that there is no dispute regarding... More
This is an action for divorce and ancillary relief. The parties are married in terms of the marriage Act, [Chapter 5:11] (Now the Marriage, Act [Chapter 5:17], which marriage was solemnised on 19 January 2007. Not only are the parties resigned to the fact that their marriage has irretrievably broken down and therefore should be dissolved, but they also agree on the distribution of the bulk of their assets as between them. They however remain poles apart on two outstanding issues namely:
a) The custody of their child Kudzaishe Magande (born on 9 August 2010) who, of their three children,... More
The applicant herein brought an application seeking a vindicatory order against the respondents for restoration of possession of a piece of land situate in the District of Salisbury called Lot 211 Block C of Hatfield Estate measuring 3,6002 hectares which is also known as No. 32 Winston Road South, Hatcliffe, Harare (“the property”). The applicant is the registered owner of the property under Deed of Transfer No.2721/2010. More
This is an urgent chamber application for a provisional order interdicting the first respondent from performing his duties as Corporate Rescue Manager for the third respondent and for him not to interfere with the business operations of the third respondent. While the interim interdict herein is being sought pending the return date, the confirmation of the provisional order is being sought pending determination of an application instituted by the applicant under case no. HCH 587/24. In HCH587/24 the applicant herein is seeking the setting aside of the first respondent’s appointment and his removal as Corporate Rescue Manager of the third... More
This is an appeal against the whole judgment of the Labour Court (“the court a quo”), dated 10 June 2022. The judgment was passed in respect of two consolidated appeals that were filed before it. In that judgment the court a quo upheld the respondent’s appeal against dismissal from employment and ordered his reinstatement or alternatively, the payment of damages in the event that reinstatement was no longer possible. More
In September, 2016 the applicant purchased the mining business from Old Nic Mine. It undertook to employ the mine’s former workers. Its undertaking was premised on the condition that the workers would not claim from it any money which was due to them from Old Nic Mine for the period that they were on unpaid leave. A majority of the mine’s former workers agreed to the condition. They were therefore re-engaged and their contracts of employment taken over and carried forward by the applicant. The respondents did not agree to the condition which the applicant proposed to others and them.... More
This is an appeal against the whole judgment of the Magistrate’s Court in which the court a quo granted an application in favour of the 1st respondent (Mavetera) for the rectification of the register in terms of section 162 of the Companies and Other Business Entities Act (the Act) [Chapter 24:31]. More
