Court Judgements
Harare High Court Judgements
This application is redolent with irregularities. This, understandably, constrained the respondent to raise a number of points in limine praying for its dismissal.
The irregularities complained of, which were not fully conceded by the applicant, are these:
1. the application does not comply with R 227(3) in that when it was filed, it did not contain a draft of the order sought; More
The applicant through its Business Performance Manager, one Bernard Chizengeya, filed the present application for rescission of the order granted under case HC 4169/20 dated 21 October 2020. The present application is filed in terms of rule 449 (1) (a) of the High Court Rules, 1971 (“the old Rules”). What had happened is that, sometime in August 2020, the first respondent petitioned this court on an urgent basis under HC 4169/20 for an interdict. He sought an interim order in two parts, firstly, authorizing him to resume his mining and allied operations at Special Grants 7667, 7668, and 7669. Secondly,... More
This is an application in terms of Article 34(2) (b)(ii) of the Arbitration Act [Chapter 7:15] [the Act] for the setting aside of part of the arbitral award handed down by the 2nd Respondent (Justice N.T. Mtshiya (Rtd)) on 27 May 2022. The application is founded on the allegation that the arbitral award conflicts with Zimbabwe’s public policy. More
On 8 February 2017 the plaintiff issued summons against the defendant claiming the sum of $20 133.46 arising from the sale of books by the defendant on behalf of the plaintiff, the proceeds of which the defendant failed to remit. The plaintiff also claimed interest on that sum at the prescribed rate plus costs of suit.
The background facts as outlined by the plaintiff are these. Sometime in 2009 the parties entered into an agreement in terms of which the defendant would receive books from the plaintiff and sell them on its behalf for a commission of 30% of the... More
This matter was placed before me as an application for the setting aside of an arbitral award in terms of Article 34 (2)(b)(ii) of the Arbitration Act [Chapter 7:15]. The award was rendered by the 2nd respondent on the 8th of June 2023. The applicant contends that the award conflicts with public policy in three main respects. (1) The award is contrary to the terms of the agreement between the parties which is binding on them and that the second respondent attempted to rewrite the contract for the parties, (2) the second respondent failed to consider submissions by the applicant... More
