The court on the 6th of September, 2022 handed down an order in the following terms;
1. The Application for confirmation of a draft ruling be and is hereby granted.
2. The draft ruling by Priscilla Mgazi, Labour Officer N.O. handed down on 6th March 2020 is hereby confirmed.
3. The 1st Respondent is directed to pay the 2nd Respondent $6 202.00 within 30 days of the date of this order.
4. Each party to bear its own costs. More
This judgment deals with a point of law that I raised when the matter was referred to me for trial.
[2] With the consent of both counsel I issued a structured order setting out timeframes within which the parties were to file heads of argument dealing with that preliminary point. The matter was then adjourned to 12 November 2024 for argument.
[3] On 5 January 2024 the plaintiff issued summons together with a declaration against the defendants. In relevant part, the summons reads as follows:
“To the Defendants named above;
The following property to be declared tainted and therefore liable... More
This is a chamber application for the upliftment of bar. The application is opposed by the 1st respondent. The applicant seeks an order in the following terms:
“IT IS ORDERED THAT :
a) The automatic bar operating against the applicant in case number HCHC 42/24 be and is hereby uplifted’
b) The appearance to defend, special plea and exception in case number HCHC 41/24 filed on behalf of the applicant be and is hereby deemed to have been properly filed by the applicant from the date of this order.
c) Costs shall be in the cause.” More
The first respondent was employed by the applicant as a Finance Director from the 1st of October 2008. He was later promoted to the position of Managing Director effective the 1st of March 2017. He was appointed the Group Finance Director on the 6th of October 2023 on the condition that he would only attend to assignments pertaining to Pulse Pharmaceuticals (Pvt) Ltd. Sometime in October 2023, a dispute arose between the parties, particularly in that the first respondent had set up a rival company, 5950 (Private) Limited, in the same business as that of the applicant. It was alleged... More
Applicant applied to this Court for condonation of a belated appeal. The application was made in terms of Rule 22 of the Labour Court Rules, 2017. Respondent opposed the application. More
1. The applicant is a property development company. The second respondent is a regulatory body established in terms of the Estate Agents Act [Chapter 27:17] to provide for the registration of estate agents and the regulation of the practice of estate agents in Zimbabwe.
2. On 6th of July 2023, the first respondent caused to be published (in print and online versions) through the second respondent in its Herald newspaper, a notice headed “Estate Agents Council of Zimbabwe: BOGUS AGENT PUBLIC NOTICE ALERT under the list of what first respondent called “Unregistered Firms and Individuals practicing as ESTATE AGENTS”, first... More
: The Applicant in this matter is a company registered as such in terms of the company law of Zimbabwe. The first Respondent is the presiding officer who granted the warrant of search and seizure which is under review. The second to fourth Respondents are employees of the fifth Respondent. The fifth Respondent is a constitutional and public entity charged with the responsibility of investigating corruption. More
