Parties appeared before an Arbitrator who issued an order in favour of the first respondent on 17 October 2023. Subsequently, the first respondent registered the award as an order of this Court on 3 July 2024 whereby applicants were ordered to pay the respondent the sum of US$29500.00 at 5% interest per annum from 10 January 2023 to the date of full payment. The parties’ immovable property namely Stand No 21795 SEKE T/Ship measuring 226 square metres was declared specially executable. More
This is an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court in terms of section 92 F (2) of the Labour Act as read with Rule 43 of the Labour Court Rules, 2017. Both parties raised preliminary issues at the commencement of the proceedings and the Court reserved judgment stating that it would furnish its reasons. More
It is essential to relate the facts in some detail. Applicant is an engineer by qualification who was employed by the Third Respondent as a Director of Engineering Services. Applicant was suspended from employment in February 2021 on allegations that the quality and quantity of water had deteriorated. Charges were preferred against the Applicant and he was brought before a Disciplinary Committee which found him guilty and recommended his dismissal. Applicant’s appeal did not meet the desired result. More
On the 10th of October 2020, the Appellant entered into a 5-year employment contract with the Respondent as an Assistant Project Manager. The contract was supposed to subsist from 10th October 2020 to 30th September 2025. On the 6th of February 2023, the Appellant received a letter of termination of his employment contract from the Respondent. The letter gave the Appellant only two weeks’ notice. On 23rd March 2023, the Appellant through his legal practitioners, wrote in response to the Respondent. He indicated that the notice period was unlawful as it fell short of the 3 months demanded by the... More
This civil trial matter was heard on 7 March 2025. The first and second defendants raised a point of law that the matter is res judicata in that there is a prior extant court order that settled the issue of ownership of the property in question. It was argued that the trial cannot be held to determine the same issue already determined by this court. It was further argued in the alternative that the matter is moot and the court ought to decline to exercise its jurisdiction over the matter. After hearing oral submissions from the parties’ legal practitioners, the... More
The appellant appeals against conviction and sentence. He was convicted after a trial on three (3) counts of stock theft and failure to comply with conditions of his firearm certificate in contravention of s114 (2) (a) of the Criminal Law [Codification and Reform] Act (Chapter 9:23) and the Firearms Act (Chapter 10:09) respectively. More
1.This is a matter in which I struck the applicant’s application off the roll with costs on 17 July, 2025. I pronounced my reasons therefor. Written reasons have now been requested. They follow hereunder.
On 26 June, 2025, the applicant filed an urgent chamber application which was set down for hearing on 1 July 2025. At the onset of proceedings, Ms Chagonda, for the first respondent, raised a preliminary point to the effect that the first respondent had not been served with the application, hence the non-filing of a notice of assumption of agency on her part or of a... More
