This is an application for the condonation of late noting of a review application. Applicant claims that he failed to file his review timeously because he had erroneously filed his review a day out of time but had not sought condonation thus resulting in the striking off of his matter. He also states that there were technical glitches that beset his filing the review on time when he filed his appeal on time. He says further delays were occasioned by the respondent’s failure to give him the full record of proceedings on time. He also cites lack of funds as... More
The applicant Apostolic Faith Mission in Zimbabwe a church congregation pleading through a founding affidavit deposed to by one Amon Dubie Madawo who styled himself as the applicant’s elected president and also stated that the applicant is a common law universitas with power to sue and to be sued. The deponent president further deposed that the applicant was constituted in terms of a written constitution and regulations which inscribed its foundational values, confession of faith mission and governance structures. The applicant did not attach a copy of its written constitution and regulations and did not do so in the answering... More
This is an application for leave to the Supreme Court following a decision by the labour court to uphold the applicant’s guilty verdict and dismissal penalty on allegations of abuse of the employer’s fuel facility when he had been laterally transferred from Harare to Bulawayo. More
On 12 March 2024 this court dismissed with costs an application for reinstatement of matter, which application had been filed by Christ Ministries High School against Edwin Chikuni its former employee and Cleopara Mhariwa the Designated Agent. Upon pronouncement of the decision the court advised the parties that they were free to request for full reasons for the decision if they needed them. The school has through a letter under the hand of its lawyers stamped 19 March 2023 requested for the reasons of the order of 12 March 2024. More
This is a ruling on whether or not present application should be treated as urgent. The background thereto is that the parties entered into a contract for the hire and lease of an excavator. That relationship soured. Present respondent instituted rei vindicatio proceedings in this court. More
This is an application for direct access to this Court, filed in terms of s 167 (5) of the Constitution as read with R 21 of the Constitutional Court Rules, 2016. It is contested. If the application is granted, the applicant intends to file a substantive application with this Court, alleging that in dealing with a non-constitutional issue, the Supreme Court, (“ the court a quo”), violated its rights to be heard and to a fair hearing as guaranteed by s 69 (2) and (3) of the Constitution. More
This chamber application was opposed by the first respondent. I set it down for hearing on 21 July 2024. Applicant and Counsel for first respondent appeared. Applicant requested a postponement as he felt that his relatives had to be present. He indicated that he had not been aware of the set down date and only appeared because the Registrar of this court had called him on his cell phone. Counsel for the first respondent was not opposed to the application for postponement. I postponed the matter to 1 July 2024 at 1000hours. More
