This is an appeal against a judgment of the High Court (‘the court a quo”), wherein it dismissed an application filed by the appellant to set aside an arbitral award in terms of Article 34 of the Arbitration Act [Chapter 7:15] (“the Act”). The court a quo consequently granted the court application for the registration of the arbitral award in favour of the first respondent. More
Applicant applied to this Court for “a review of the decision/action of the 1st Respondent” regarding the negotiation process of the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). The application
1
was made in terms of Section 89(1) 1d of the Labour Act Chapter 28:01. 1st Respondent opposed the application whilst 2nd Respondent did not file any response. More
The Applicant seeks in this application to have reviewed the decision by the 1st and 2nd Respondents, jointly or one of them with the approval of the other to approve an investigator to investigate the affairs of the Applicant contrary to the provisions of Section 63 and Section 63A of the Labour Act [CAP 28:01] and without any other legal basis whatsoever. The 1st and 2nd Respondent announced the appointment of the investigator in a letter dated 22 January 2024 (attached as Annexure 4 to Applicant’s papers). There is attached to this letter a letter containing a complaint addressed to... More
ZHOU J: This is an application for a declaratory order and consequential relief made in terms of s14 of the High Court Act [Chapter 7:06] in which the applicant seeks an order couched in the following terms:
1. That the agreement of sale of 2000 gold dumps entered by applicant and first respondent on 29 October 2024 is valid, subsisting and obligating on the parties.
2. That in terms of that agreement, applicant is entitled to access and collect 1384 loads of gold dump from first respondent. More
: The applicants and the 2nd respondent have in common certain rights and interests in Cardigan Farm, Kadoma, Mashonaland. The 1st applicant claims to be the owner of the farm in question. In addition, he jointly owns some registered mining rights with the 2nd applicant. On the other hand, the 2nd respondent is a registered holder of 10 gold reef mining claims on the same farm. The 1st respondent is the Environmental Management Authority, responsible for the issuance of environmental impact assessment certificates to prospective miners as a prerequisite for all mining operations. More
: This is a referral judgment of a matter to the Constitutional Court in terms of s 175(4) of the Constitution as read together with r 108 of the High Court rules, 2021 and r 24 of the Constitutional Court rules, 2016. The judgment was made pursuant to the filing of a joint stated case in which the parties agreed on the constitutional issue for determination by the Constitutional Court. More
This is a divorce action matter. The parties married on 26 August 2017 in terms of the Civil Marriages Act Chapter 5:11 [now Chapter 5:17] and the marriage still subsists. The marriage was not blessed with children. More
