Court Judgements




Constitutional Court of Zimbabwe Judgements

PRAYMORE MAKANDA V (1) MAGISTRATE SANDE N.O (2) MAGISTRATE KADYE N.O (3) MAGISTRATE NDIRAYA N.O (4) THE STATE (2021-05-17)
This is an application for direct access to the Constitutional Court made in terms of s 167(5)(a) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe. The allegation is that the conduct of the respondents violated the applicant`s fundamental rights as enshrined in ss 69(1) and 70(1)(d),(e) and (f) of the Constitution. More

PROSECUTOR GENERAL, ZIMBABWE V TELECEL ZIMBABWE (PRIVATE) LIMITED (2015-10-08)
The court did not hear argument on the merits of this application, but determined it on the preliminary point of whether or not the matter had been properly brought before the Constitutional Court. More

QEDISANI SILAS MACHINE V (1) THE SHERIFF OF ZIMBABWE (2) ZB BANK LIMITED (3) THE REGISTRAR OF DEEDS (4) PAPERHOLE INVESTMENTS (PRIVATE) LIMITED (2023-06-26)
The applicant owed the second respondent the sum of US$327 345.77 plus interest thereon at the rate of fifty percent per annum. On a date that is not material, the second respondent obtained judgment in the High Court against the applicant for the payment of the debt together with the accrued interest. The applicant failed to satisfy the judgment debt. In due course, the first respondent attached the applicant’s farm and sold it by public auction. The sale realised the sum of US$205 000.00. The applicant successfully objected to the sale. The first respondent set the sale aside, accepting that... More

RITA MARQUE MBATHA V (1) CONFEDERATION OF ZIMBABWE INDUSTRIES (2) THE SHERIFF OF ZIMBABWE (2021-07-13)
This is an application for leave for direct access to the court made in terms of s 167(5) of the Constitution (“the Constitution”), as read with r 21(2) and (3) of the Constitutional Court Rules, 2016 (“the Rules”). The application is opposed. More

RITA MARQUE MBATHA V NATIONAL FOODS (PRIVATE) LIMITED (2021-07-13)
The facts of this matter are largely common cause. The applicant was employed by the respondent as a personal assistant to the Managing Director, Transport Division. By letter dated 15 June 2009, the applicant was notified that the respondent had restructured its divisions to avoid going into insolvency and that the restructuring had resulted in the abolishment of her post. Consequent thereto, she was offered two options, viz: a retrenchment package or alternatively, placement on garden leave pending redeployment to any other available post within the respondent. Altogether, the exercise affected nine other employees in the respondent’s transport division whose... More


Midlands State University Library