This matter was set down so that a review application filed on behalf of the applicant could be heard. At the commencement of the hearing the legal practitioner on behalf of the respondent stood up to address the Court. The nature of the application was not immediately articulated in order for the Court to appreciate it. More
The background to the matter as given by the applicants’ representative stems from an agreement the applicants had with the 1st respondent wherein funds were to be pooled together for a co-operative venture. The co-operative was to purchase land for the benefit of all the applicants. More
This is an appeal against the order of the Magistrates Court sitting at the Bulawayo Magistrates Court (“court a quo”). The appellant, Nomathemba Banda, secured a loan from the respondent, FMC Finance (Private) Limited. The respondent contended that the appellant defaulted in her loan repayments and sued for the recovery of the balance outstanding. The court a quo granted summary judgment in favour of the respondent. For ease of reference and where the context allows the parties shall be referred to as in the court a quo i.e., the respondent as the plaintiff and the appellant as the defendant. More
These two matters were consolidated following an application made by defendant in HC 1141/09 and plaintiff in HC 2256/19. For ease of reference I will refer to the plaintiff in HC 1141/09 as “the Trust” and defendant in HC 1141/09 who is plaintiff in HC 2256/19 as “Mercy.” More
This is an application for condonation for late noting of appeal. It is opposed.
I must express from the outset, my concern with the perception some litigants may have of the rules of the Labour Court Statutory Instrument 150/2017(the Rules) and how they are applied. I say this in view of the present matter and how it was presented. It is trite that this Court exercises equitable jurisdiction in dealing with matters which are brought before it.
However, this is always done within the confines of both the rules of the Court and the Labour Act Chapter 28:01 ( the... More
This is an appeal against the decision by a designated agent reinstating the respondent (the employee) into his former position with no loss of salary and benefits. The designated agent also ordered the payment of back pay for two different periods and the appellant was not challenging the backpay which relates to the period the respondent was unlawfully dismissed. More
The applicant as farmer and the first respondent as miner lock horns over the exercise of their respective rights on the same piece of land. The applicant occupies a piece of land by virtue of land occupation permit issued to him in 2001 at the height of the land reform programme. The first respondent on the other hand is, on the face of it, the holder of certain mining rights over the same piece of land which it acquired by virtue of a contract to that effect with the fourth respondent. The mining claim was initially registered in the name... More
