Applicant applied to this Court for the review of the decision by respondents’ Disciplinary Committee to conclude his hearing without hearing his evidence. The application was made in terms of Section 89(1)1d of the Labour Act Chapter 28:01. Respondents opposed the application. More
The applicant, San He Mining Zimbabwe [Pvt] Ltd [“San He”], has brought a combined application in respect of an arbitral award, on 28 July 2022 by the second respondent, the arbitrator, retired judge, Mr Justice Chinhengo. On the one hand it seeks the setting aside of that portion of the award adverse to it. On the other hand, it seeks the registration of that portion of the award beneficial to it, but as amended. The combined application is said to have been brought in terms of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law [UNCITRAL] Model Law, an annexure to... More
This is an appeal against the decision of the disciplinary authority dated 27 August 2024. Background to the matter is that appellant who was in the respondent’s employment as an operations administrator, was accused of having engaged in conduct which was inconsistent with the dictates of her employment. She was therefore charged with a breach of Section 4(d) of the National Code. Seven accusations were levelled against her but she was acquitted on 4 and found guilty on the remaining three. The guilty verdict on the three resulted in her dismissal from employment. The three counts whish she was found... More
The first respondent approached the court a quo by way of an application seeking an interdict against the appellant and the second respondent barring them from entering its farm in Arcturus, Goromonzi and from laying any rights to a certain mining claim situated thereon. The first respondent also sought an order that the appellant and the second respondent stop all mining operations at the mining claim. In its founding affidavit deposed to by one Morrison Bimbi, the first respondent averred as follows: It was the owner of a certain piece of land called the remainder of Lot 4 of the... More
In considering this matter of insurance, I kept reminding myself of the words of R.H Christie, in Business law in Zimbabwe, (Juta and company Limited, 1998, 2016 edition at page 221), as follows,
“ The object of insurance is to protect people from financial disaster. They buy this protection by the payment of a moderate price in exchange for a promise to pay an agreed amount if or when the disaster occurs. The seller of this protection is known as the insurer, the buyer the insured (or assured in life insurance), the price is known as the premium and the... More
The plaintiff claims from the defendant payment of the sum of US$1 517 465-00, reduced to US$1 461 000-00 by an amendment to the summons and declaration, and finally to US$1 014 483-00 at trial. The claim is for damages for breach of contract. The nature of such damages is not finely pleaded. They are supposed to be consequential or anticipatory damages flowing from the alleged breach. More
Defendant raised a special plea against plaintiff`s claim for an amount of US$274,768 as damages for alleged breach of contract. Both parties are economic players in the agricultural sector. Sometime in November 2022, plaintiff (“Seedco”) and defendant (“Mr Falkenberg”) concluded a soya bean crop financing and production contract. More
