This is an opposed chamber application for the registration of a deed of settlement. For purposes of this judgement, and in order to avoid confusion, I will refer to the parties, were the context permits by their names i.e. the applicant as “Nyabadza” and the respondent as “the company.” More
This is an application for review of completed proceedings from Inyathi Magistrates Court in terms of section 27(1)(c) of the High Court Act [Chapter 7:06] (“the Rules”). The applicants were arraigned before the Magistrate Court facing a charge of contravening section 368 of the Mines and Minerals Act [Chapter 21:05.] (“the Mines and Minerals Act”). The allegations were that on 4 January 2025 and along Bulawayo-Nkayi road near Ndwangwana shopping centre, Queens, Inyathi the applicants unlawfully prospected for gold without a permit or licence. More
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
[1] What is in a name? Is it true that that which we call a rose, by any other name would smell just as sweet? Not quite, if you consider the circumstances of this case. Apparently, there is everything in a name.
[2] On 12 March 2025, the first respondent obtained an order from this court, under case number HCH685/25, placing a company called Sinosteel Zimasco (Private) Limited (‘Sinosteel Zimasco’) under corporate rescue proceedings. The terms of the order were that: More
The employer and the employees in this case approached the Labour Court on appeal and on cross appeal in respect of an arbitral decision which had ruled that they appear before the retrenchment board so that the board could assist them to arrive at a mutually agreeable and mutually beneficial package. More
he first respondent, is a statutory institution constituted in terms of the Manpower Planning and Development Act [Chapter 28:02], which contracted the appellant in November 2000 to construct a nine-storey building in Harare and subsequently took occupation of the completed building as its headquarters. It has in fact litigated in that name, almost at an industrial scale in the courts, but suddenly came across an idea, namely that it does not have legal personality to contract or to sue and be sued in its own right. Never mind that the discovery of its legal incapacity did not stop it litigating... 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
