Welcome to Midlands State University Library

Court Judgements



Browse Court Judgements by year
The appellant and the second respondent, who are both in the mining business, locked horns over a dispute concerning mining claims. The first respondent is the Provincial Mining Director for Mashonaland East. More

Applicant seeks an order declaring two agreements of sale of land between itself and first respondent invalid. It also prays for the refund of purchase price in the sum of US$220,000. The application is resisted by first and fourth respondents. The rest of the respondents elected to stay out of the broil. I will advert to the role and relevance of the respective parties as the judgment unfolds. More

This is an appeal against the decision of the arbitrator who found that the respondent employees had a legitimate expectation of being re-engaged when their fixed term contracts effluxed by passage of time. The matter has taken almost a decade to be resolved which is surely regrettable and a travesty of justice in the court’s view. More

On 13 July 2023 Applicant filed a Court Application for Review in terms of Rule 62 of SI 202/2021. The Grounds of Review centered on the fourth Respondent’s decision to grant the consent to sell stand 14410/5 Kuwadzana Township Harare, a property belonging to the late Socrates Zimunhu’s Estates. In her Founding Affidavit, Applicant stated that she was customarily married to the deceased sometime in 1994. Three children were born out of the marriage. In 2003 she divorced the deceased in the Magistrates Court under case number MC 243/03. She was awarded 40% of the value of the matrimonial home,... More

This appeal seeks the setting aside of the internal appeals officer’s decision and the reinstatement of the appellant with no loss of salary or benefits or alternatively the payment of damages in lieu of reinstatement. More

At the onset of oral argument in this Court, Respondent raised an objection which Applicant opposed. Appellant’s appeal was signed for by D. Chiwara of the National Union For the Plastics, Pharmaceuticals, Fertilizers, Chemicals, Batteries Manufacturing and Allied Industries of Zimbabwe. However Respondent operates in the transport industry. Its employees are represented by the trade union for the transport operator’s industry. On that basis respondent objected to the representation of appellant (its employee) by the plastics and allied industries union. More

TAKESURE CHEMUGARIRA AND GABRIEL CHIDZIVA AND ACKIM CHIGARIRO AND KILLIAN CHIKWIRAMAKOMO AND JOHN ZVINGAREHWANI CHIROMBO AND RICHARD CHISEDZI AND DANIEL CHITENDERU AND OLIVER DAPIRA AND LANGTON DUNGA AND WASHINGON FERENDENDE AND JOHN GUTUKUNHUWA AND CHARLES MAKADZANGE AND WILLE MASIYA AND CEPHAS MUCHINGAMI AND ALOIS MUDIMU AND LANGTON MUGARI AND HERBERT MUJAJI AND MATIKI MUKOTO AND EDMOND MUNDONDE AND LUKE MUTARE AND ARTWELL MUTARI AND ONEKAI MWAUNZIRENI AND FARAI TARANGANAI AND RAFARAPHAEL GADZIRA AND WICKSON SHUPIKAI CHIUNDA AND EDGAR TSHUMA AND FRANCIS MARIMA JAKARASI AND CRISPEN MAJONI VEREENGERA AND ISIAIH MACONDI CHAMUNORWA AND OBERT NCUBE SHOKO AND PHILLIP NGOSHI AND FEDNARD NDLOVU AND NACEAL CHIDANHIKA CHIDINDI AND SABELO NDLOVU AND LEONCE PAUL SIYAPHI AND ELIAS MOYO AND PHILLIP TARUVINGA SITHOLE AND DAVID TENDAYI DZINGIRE AND LAWSON DEMA DEMA AND JONA SABURUTSWA AND LOVERIDGE SHAYAMANO AND DENNIS MPOFU AND JOHN MATSVERU AND LUCKSON MUTENGWA AND ADM SIBANDA AND ANDREW GUMWE AND CANAAN MACHONA AND SMART TECHU MUROMO AND JEFIAS CHIMEDZA AND LUCKISON CHIKWANDA AND LUKE DABULAMANZI NDLOVU AND LUKAS MUNYIKA AND GILSON MANENJI AND JOHN NYANGANI AND PETTER SITHOLE VERSUS ZIMBABWE UNITED PASSENGER COMPANY LIMITED PENSION AND LIFE ASSURANCE FUND AND THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES ZIMBABWE UNITED PASSENGER COMPANY LIMITED PENSION AND LIFE ASSURANCE FUND AND ZIMBABWE UNITED PASSENGER COMPANY AND FIDELITY LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY OF ZIMBABWE LIMITED AND INSURANCE AND PENSION COMMISSION OF ZIMBABWE LIMITED (2024-08-06)
The plaintiffs are former employees of the third defendant who either retired, resigned, got retrenched or dismissed or were asked to proceed on leave until they were called back to work. The ex-employees are members of the first defendant, a pension fund in which they participated as employees of the third defendant. The plaintiffs were entitled to some pension benefits from the first defendant on termination of employment. The second defendant is a Board of Trustees, which oversees the operations of the pension fund on behalf of both the plaintiffs and the first defendant. The fourth defendant was sued as... More