Court Judgements
This is an appeal against a decision rendered by a magistrate which compelled the appellant to release unconditionally, a vehicle it had impounded from the respondent with each party bearing its own costs.
The brief facts giving rise to this matter are that on the 25th of April 2020, members of FERET team who were patrolling along the Limpopo river area intercepted the respondent’s vehicle which was loaded with unaccustomed goods. It was alleged that the vehicle in question was being driven by the respondent who produced his identification document with number 43- 162579 W 43. The smuggled goods were... More
This is an appeal against the judgment of the Magistrates Court sitting at Beitbridge in case number CIV BTB 90/21 handed down on 10 January, 2022. More
On 10 January 2020 the respondent filed an exparte application for a spoliation order at Mutare Provincial Magistrate’s Court on the basis that on 6 January 2020 the current appellants had ordered their employees to invade a commercial stand housing a service station where the respondent was the tenant and operator. Respondent attached a lease agreement to his application dated 14 March 2019. When the respondent’s employees invaded the service station they disjointed fuel pump units, parked a truck in front of a diesel fuel tank blocking the current respondent’s deliveries. On 9 January appellant’s staff allegedly repossessed the service... More
This is an urgent chamber application in terms of s 92 (c) of the Labour Court Act [Cap 28:01] as read with rule 33 of the Labour Court Rule S I 15/06 wherein the applicant is applying the court to alter its judgment of 22 November 2013 on the basis that the judgment in question was made in error. More
This is an application for correction of an order in terms of section 92 C (1) (c ) of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01]. On 12 August 2015 this court granted the following order:
“1. The applicant having filed an application in terms of rule 19 (3)(a) of SI 59/2006, the application be and is hereby granted.
2. The respondent being barred for non-compliance with rule 19 (2) (ii) of S I 59/2006, the application under reference LC/H/APP/998/14 be and is hereby granted.” More
The first defendant filed a combined special plea and exception to the plaintiff’s summons and declaration. It implored the court to uphold the special plea and the exception, and consequently to dismiss the plaintiff’s claim with costs on the attorney and client scale. The plaintiff opposed both the special plea and the exception. The plaintiff is a trade union established in terms of the Labour Act . It represents the interests of employees of the first defendant, a local authority established in terms of the Rural District Councils Act. The second defendant is a designated agent in the Employment Council... More
In the two matters the applicant seek to register the decision of a designated agent for purposes of registration. Under HC 68/23 the applicant a legal persona was granted a final determination in its favour against the 1st respondent for payment of US$7 568.30. Under HC 157/23 an order in the sum of US$5 874.20 was granted in favour of the applicant by a designated agent, the 2nd respondent in the matter.
The only issue for determination is whether this court should revert to its inherent jurisdiction to register a designated agent’s decision for purposes of enforcement. The application was... More
