Court Judgements
This is an appeal against the decision of the High Court (the ‘court a quo’) dated 20 August 2020. The court a quo dismissed the first appellant’s application for rescission of a judgment which had been granted in default. After hearing submissions from counsel the appeal was allowed with costs. The reasons for this decision are outlined hereunder. More
The appellant appeals against part of the judgment of the High Court sitting at Bulawayo that was handed down on 20 May 2021. The court a quo ordered the respondent to pay to the appellant delictual damages in the sum of US$ 66 789.80 in local currency converted at the parity rate of one-on-one as between the two currencies.
On 18 September 2009, the first respondent’s locomotive hit and damaged the first appellant’s horse and trailer, which were stuck at a railroad level crossing in Somabula. The appellants issued summons on 29 June 2010, claiming damages in the sum of... More
This is an appeal against the entire judgment of the High Court, sitting at Harare, handed down on 21 April 2021 wherein the court a quo granted a declarator in favour of the first and second respondents More
On 2 March 2022, the applicants noted an appeal to this Court under case number SCB 30/22 against the judgment of the Labour Court handed down on 23 July 2021. They were legally represented. Having been employed by the respondent on fixed-term contracts of lengths varying from four to seven years, the applicants sought to challenge the Labour Court’s decision which concluded that they had no basis for legitimate expectations of reemployment by the respondent. More
The respondent applied to the High Court for an interim interdict seeking the suspension of the first appellant’s cancellation of its licence. The application was granted. The appellants aggrieved by that decision appealed to this Court. More
In this application, the applicant seeks an order in the following terms:
“(a) The prosecution of applicant by the General Court Martial 02/13 for the offence of contravening paragraph 15 (2) (a) of the Defence Act [Chapter 11:02], that is, absence without leave which occurred in 2004 be and is hereby permanently stayed.
(b) First, second, third and fourth respondents, the one paying the others to be absolved, are to pay the costs of suit.”
[2] The application, which was opposed by the respondents, was heard before this court on 16 October 2013 and judgment reserved. For reasons that remain... More
2. The respondent is a company which engaged in mining activities. It also sometimes hires out its state-of-the-art equipment to other mining companies. The board of the company comprises three individuals being Ofer Sivan, Munyaradzi Gonyora and Gilad Shabtai. Gilad Shabtai is the board chairperson. Sometime in 2011 Ofer Sivan was appointed Director and from around 2015 he spearheaded the company as its Managing Director.
3. The appellants were employees of the respondent who, it is alleged, have since been suspended from employment.
4. At some stage Ofer Sivan allegedly misappropriated trust funds in excess of USD $1 500 000.00.... More
