MAMBARA J: This matter was set down on the unopposed roll after the defendant’s plea was struck out for non-attendance at the pre-trial conference and her subsequent application for rescission was deemed abandoned. Liability is therefore not in issue; the court is seized only with the assessment of quantum under r 25(1) of the High Court Rules, 2021.
The plaintiff seeks US $50 000, broken down into US $30 000 for contumelia and US $20 000 for loss of consortium, arising from a protracted adulterous relationship between the defendant and the plaintiff’s husband that began in 2019, produced two children,... More
This is an opposed application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against an order issued by this Court on the 11th of March, 2025 under case number LC/H/68-25 and order number LCHORD 226-25. The application is brought in terms of section 92 F of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01], as read with Rule 43 of the Labour Court Rules, 2017. More
On 15 July 2025, Applicant’s legal practitioners wrote to the Registrar requesting for written reasons for the order that was granted on 11 March 2025.
Appellant filed the appeal which was issued by the Registrar on 27 January 2025. The Notice of Appeal had two grounds of appeal. However, the prayer in the Notice of Appeal read as follows:
“WHEREFORE Appellant prays that the appeal be allowe More
Applicant applied for condonation of a belated application for leave to appeal this Court’s judgment referenced LCH 84/23 to the Supreme Court. Respondent opposed the application.
At the onset of oral argument the Court pressed applicant to cite the legal basis for the application. This was in light of the fact that the Court has previously in a different matter ruled that there is no legal basis for such an application in the Labour Court Rules, 2017. Applicant’s response was to apply for directions under Rule 32 on the basis that there is a lacuna in the Rules. More
Applicant applied for condonation of a belated application for leave to appeal this Court’s judgment referenced LCH 84/23 to the Supreme Court. Respondent opposed the application.
At the onset of oral argument the Court pressed applicant to cite the legal basis for the application. This was in light of the fact that the Court has previously in a different matter ruled that there is no legal basis for such an application in the Labour Court Rules, 2017. Applicant’s response was to apply for directions under Rule 32 on the basis that there is a lacuna in the Rules. More
1.The applicants seeks an interdict against the first respondent in the following terms:
“(a) 1st Respondent be and is hereby ordered to stop interfering, disturbing, disrupting and encroaching into Applicant’s farm situated at Mutasa known as Subdivision 2 of Lot 1 of Premier Estate for the purpose of effecting improvements or any alterations as well as mining pending the resolution of the matter before the 2nd Respondent through the 3rd Respondent.
(b) 1st Respondent be and is hereby ordered to pay costs of suit on an ordinary scale.” More
This judgment disposes of case numbers HCH 5885/24 and HCH 13/25. The applicant and the respondents are common in the two cases. The applicant is Walter Magaya who described himself in both cases as a “renowned Minister of the Gospel and a passionate football enthusiast” who has “proudly supported local football serving as a dedicated benefactor to the support.” This was rightfully not disputed because the applicants CV is pregnant with proof of financial and logistic support which he has given to the game. The first respondent is Lincolin Mutasa cited in his official capacity as the chairperson of the... More
