Welcome to Midlands State University Library

Court Judgements



Browse Court Judgements by year
Applicant is a real estate firm and respondent its former client. Applicant seeks an order for specific performance directing respondent to pay an amount of US$ 20,037,50 being the sum allegedly due under a realtor`s mandate. Respondent contests the relief sought on the basis that applicant failed to deliver on that mandate. More

1. That the Notice of Response is fatally defective for want of form: Rule 19(2) of the Labour Court Rules, 2017 requires a party to file his response in the prescribed form called LC2. Appellant alleged that the Response in casu does not comply with the requirement. A comparison of the response and Form LC 2 shows that the only difference is absence of the inscription “LC2” at the top right corner. The inscription is meant to identify the forms in the Rules. It is not necessary that a party’s response in their pleadings be inscribed by the Form’s notation.... More

This is a ss79 and 80 of the Money Laundering and Proceeds of Crime Act [Chapter 9:24] (“the Money Laundering Act”) application for the civil forfeiture to the State of ZWL$1436 500 and a white Honda Airwave Registration number AFD 1898 (“the motor vehicle) More

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