: This is an urgent chamber application wherein applicant seeks stay of executor.
The facts as given in the founding affidavit are as follows:
On 30 November 2011 first responded issued summons against the applicant for malicious prosecution malicious arrest and detention for USD 400 000 plus interest.
The matter was set down for trial in the course of the trial an application for absolution from the instance was made and it was granted in favour of the applicant. First respondent appealed that judgment to the Supreme Court. Under SC 51/19 the Supreme Court rendered a judgment in favour of... More
This is a court application for dismissal of an action on the ground that it is frivolous and vexatious. The application was filed in terms of rule 31(1) of the High Court Rules, 2021. After hearing submissions from counsel, the court upheld the point in limine that the first to third respondents’ opposing papers were invalid. The court struck out the said notice of opposition and opposing affidavits and proceeded to deal with the matter as an unopposed application. More
This civil trial matter was heard on 5 February 2025. Before the commencement of the trial, the plaintiff’s counsel made an oral application for a postponement of the matter. After hearing oral submissions from the parties’ legal practitioners, the court issued an ex tempore judgment the operative part of which was that the application for a postponement was dismissed. Following the dismissal of the application and the court being satisfied that the plaintiff was not present, I proceeded in terms of rule 56(3) of the High Court Rules, 2021. Consequently, the court granted judgment in favour of the first defendant... More
: This matter was placed before me as an urgent chamber application.
The applicants seek an order as couched below:-
“TERMS OF THE FINAL RELIEF
That you show cause to this Honourable Court why a final order should not be made in the following terms:
The Provisional order be and is hereby confirmed.
The respondent shall pay applicants’ cost of suit on the legal practitioner and client scale More
On 4th June 2024 at Harare, Arbitrator N Shumba issued an award which ordered respondents to pay appellants their “back pays in arrears” by way of installments over one (1) year Appellants then appealed the award to this Court in term of section 98 (10) of the Labour Act Chapter 28:01 hereafter called the Act. Respondent opposed the appeal. More
Applicants applied to this Court for the reinstatement of an abandoned matter. The application is provided for by Rule 36 of the Labour Court Rules, 2017. Respondent opposed the application. More
The appellants were employed in various capacities. They were retrenched on 28 July 2021. The appellants challenged the retrenchment on the basis that the retrenchment process was unlawful as they were retrenched by a non-existent entity. Martindale Catholic Primary School which retrenched them was not their employer and it had no right to retrench them. Martindale Primary School was registered under the name; Little Children of our Blessed Lady Sisters. It was argued that Little Children of our Blessed Lady Sisters ought to have retrenched them and not Martindale Catholic Primary School. More
