1. This is a criminal appeal against the whole judgment of the High Court (the court a quo) which reversed the appellants’ acquittal by the Regional Magistrate, Harare on one count of forgery as defined in s 137 of the Criminal law (Codification) and Reform Act [Chapter 9:23] (the Code) and two counts of fraud as defined in s 136 of the Code. The court a quo, in the process of appeal, overturned the verdicts of acquittal and substituted them with verdicts of guilty on all the 3 counts for all the 4 appellants. Thereafter it remitted the matter to... More
This is an application for review, brought in terms of rule 20(1) of the Labour Court Rules, 2017 (Hereinafter the Rules). The following background facts provide the context for this application. More
: This is an application for an interdict against the 1st respondent. The basis for this application is that the 1st applicant is the registered holder of mining claims, known as the ROYAL FAMILY GROUP MINING CLAIMS. The 1st respondent allegedly conducts mining activities independently on the 1st applicant’s mining claims. He holds no certificate of registration in respect of those claims but the 1st applicant does. He is not a director, shareholder, or employee of the applicants. The 1st respondent is the only one who has opposed this application. More
This appeal challenges the whole decision rendered by the Registrar of Trade Marks [the Registrar], dated 18 November 2022, upholding expungement of the HI-TET trade mark no.508/2009 while allowing the HITET trade mark no. 205/1989 to remain on the Register of Trade marks [the Register More
On 28 January 2025 this court handed down the order which read as follows “Application for review being without merit it be and is hereby dismissed with costs on the ordinary scale. The court indicated to the parties that reasons for the order could be availed to them on request. A request for the dame has been made by the applicant. More
This is an application for condonation of the late filing of an application for Review. The facts, which are common cause are that the Second Respondent rendered a determination which served on the Applicant on 5 June 2024. In terms of the Rules, Applicant was supposed to the application for Review within 21 days. This was not done. Applicant has therefore approached this Court for condonation. More
: This matter was placed before me as a chamber application for reinstatement of a matter deemed abandoned and dismissed. After hearing submissions from the parties’ legal practitioners, the court dismissed the application with costs on a legal practitioner and client scale. The following are the full reasons for my decision. More
