MUTEVEDZI J: This appeal is against the whole judgment of the Magistrates Court sitting at Bulawayo, handed down on 2 May 2023, dismissing the appellant’s claim for the cancellation of an agreement of sale, the conversion of the deposit and part payments made by the respondent to become rentals and the ejectment of the respondent and all those claiming occupation through her from Stand No. 339 Emthunzini Township, Bulawayo and costs of suit. We must state upfront, that at about the same time that we heard this appeal, we also dealt with another in the case of Lloyd Sesa v... More
On second of August 2022, respondent obtained a default judgment against the appellant. The judgment was for the eviction of the appellant from stand number 3723 subdivision C Portion of Haydor Farm Westgate Harare. The appellant had not filed an appearance to defend resulting in a default judgment being entered against her.
It is this default judgement the appellant wanted rescinded by a Magistrate. The court a quo dismissed with costs the court application for rescission of default judgment. The rule nisi for stay of execution was discharged. More
The first applicant, Heal Zimbabwe is a universitas with capacity to sue and be sued. It is represented by its Executive Director, Rashid Mahiya duly authorised by a resolution to that effect made by its board of Directors.
The second applicant is Tonderai Chiwanza, an adult male of Chitungwiza. He described himself as a former councillor for Chitungwiza Municipal Council and a human rights activist with “an inherent interest” in protecting the constitution. More
On the 8th August 2024 Arbitrator NC Mutiba issued an arbitral award in terms of which she ordered applicant to pay respondents retrenchment packages amounting to US$ 28,532.15. Applicant then applied to this Court for the review of the award in terms of Section 89 of the (1) (d1) Labour Act Chapter 28:01 hereafter called the Act. More
At the onset of oral argument in this court, applicant raised 3 (three) points in limine which respondent opposed. The points will be addressed ad seriatim. More
This is an application for direct access in terms of s 167(5) of the Constitution, as read with Rule 21(2) of the Constitutional Court Rules, 2016. In essence, the application challenges the decision of the Supreme Court (the court a quo) on the grounds that it violated the applicant’s fundamental rights under ss 56(1), 69(1) and 70(1) of the Constitution, which guarantee the right to equality and non-discrimination, the right to a fair trial, and the rights of an accused person. The applicant contends that the court a quo failed to properly adjudicate the appeal before it and to uphold... More
The appellant is Hebert Admire Makani, a former employee in the Department of Immigration which falls under the Ministry of Home Affairs. This appeal arises from disciplinary proceedings instituted against the appellant wherein he was charged with acts of misconduct in terms of Section 44(2) of the Public Service Regulations, 2000, as read with paragraphs 4 and 7 of the First Schedule to the same Regulations. More
