This is an application for a mandatory interdict. Applicant seeks an order in the following terms:
1. The application for compelling Order be and is hereby granted.
2.The Respondents be and are hereby ordered to release the Deawoo Excavator at Number 32 Courtney, Ballantyne Park, Borrowdale.
3. The Respondents are prohibited from denying Applicant access to Courtney, Ballantyne Park, Borrowdale Number 32 for purposes of collection of the Deawoo Excavator.
4. The Respondents to pay costs on higher scale. More
On the 1st March 2024 at Harare, Designated Agent K Murenje issued a determination
which ordered appellant to pay respondent various amounts denominated in United States Dollars (USD). Appellant then appealed the determination to this Court in terms of Section 92D of the Labour Act Chapter 28:01 hereafter called “the Act.” Respondent opposed the appeal. More
Before me is an urgent Court Application for Leave to Execute Warrant of Search and Seizure Pending Appeal noted with the Supreme Court under SC32/25. The present application is made in terms of Rule 59(6) of the High Court Rules, 2021. The Applicants prayed for the following order as relief,
“1. The application is granted
2. The 1st-4th Applicants be and are hereby granted leave to execute warrant of search and seizure WSS-ZACC 3477/24 pending the determination of the appeal filed under Case Number SC 32/24.
3. The Respondent shall pay costs on a Legal Practitioner and Client scale.” More
This is an appeal against the decision of the Arbitrator. The brief facts are that First Respondent referred his matter to a Labour Officer in terms of section 93 (1) of the Labour Act (Chapter 28:01). At the proceedings, Appellant raised a point in limine to the effect that the matter was prescribed in terms section 94 of the Act and required the Labour Officer to make a determination thereof. The Labour Officer declined to do so. The Labour Officer proceeded to issue a Certificate of No Settlement and the matter was referred to arbitration as provided by statute. The... More
“It is deplorable that the Rules of Court are not studied or taken seriously by the legal practitioners who practice in those courts. It is part of a legal practitioner’s legal duty to his client to ensure that he is well versed in the Rules of the Court in which he appears on behalf of his client. Not to be conversant with the Rules constitutes, in my view, gross negligence on the part of a legal practitioner vis a vis his client” (per ZIYAMBI JA in Innocent Kadungure v Cheryl Chandi Kadungure SC 19/07) More
On 02 October 2024 two matters LC/H/764/24 and LC/H/785/24 were placed before this court. LC/H/785/24 pertained to grant of interim relief pending appeal. By consent interim relief was granted thus leaving for determination only appeal LC/H/764/24. This judgment therefore addresses only the issues raised by the appeal following the conclusion of the interim relief case by the consent order More
