This is a purported appeal against the whole judgment of the Supreme Court (“the court a quo”) setting aside a decision of the High Court which had nullified an audit report authored by the second respondent at the instance of the first respondent. The High Court had found that the second respondent was an administrative authority for purposes of the Administrative Justice Act [Chapter 10:28] (“the Administrative Justice Act or simply the AJA”) and that the audit report it had produced was consequently reviewable. The Court further found that the report was not only biased but that the auditors who... More
1. This is an appeal against the whole judgment of the High Court (the court a quo) handed down on 04 September 2023. The court a quo dismissed an application by the appellant for the review of the decision by the respondent’s Commissioner General of 8 March 2023 declaring a consignment belonging to the appellant forfeited to the State. More
This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Zimbabwe (‘court a quo’) dated 15 June 2023 in which it dismissed an application for a final interdict sought by the appellant against the respondents. The first respondent, which had an obvious interest in the matter, vigorously opposed the application while the second and the third respondents chose to abide by the decision of the court. More
The matter was placed before me as an application for condonation for late filing of an application for review against the Respondent’s Hearing Officer’s determination handed down on 16th October, 2018. The application is premised on Rule 22 as read with Rule 20 of the Labour Court Rules, Statutory Instrument of 2017. The application is opposed. More
: This is a court application for review made in terms of s 26 of the High Court Act, [Chapter 7:06] as read with Order 33 of the high Court Rules. 1971. The grounds for review are given as follows:
1. “The learned magistrate grossly erred at law and in fact in concluding that the default was wilful when the applicant was in court just after the default was passed. That the applicant saw that first respondent still at court.
2. The learned magistrate grossly erred in failing to treat this matter with fairness and the applicant was in wilful... More
The Respondent was employed by the Appellant as a Flight Lines Engineer. He was employed on the basis of a fixed term contract from the 1st of October 2021 to the 30th of September, 2024. The Respondent’s employment was terminated on the 31st of January, 2023. The Respondent being aggrieved by a perceived unlawful termination referred the dispute to a Labour Officer. The matter was set down for conciliation. The parties however failed to reach conciliation. A Certificate of No Settlement was issued although it does not form part of the record. The Labour Officer then proceeded to hear oral... More
Sometime in February 2012, the plaintiff and the defendant entered into a written agreement of sale in terms of which the defendant sold to the plaintiff an undivided share representing shop number F12, which was to be constructed on a property known as Subdivision B and C of Subdivision C of Lot 15 Block C of Avondale, Harare. The negotiations involved an offer of a smaller shop valued at US$35 000 and shares with a value of US$35 000. Both proposals were apparently rejected by the purchaser.
According to the plaintiff, the defendant breached the agreement in that it failed... More
