Court Judgements
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
This is an appeal against the entire judgment of the High Court of Zimbabwe sitting at Gweru which found the appellants guilty of culpable homicide as defined in terms of s 49 of the Criminal Law Codification and Reform Act [Chapter 9:23] (the Act). More
This is an opposed application for review of taxation proceedings made in terms of Rule 56(2) as read with Rule 73 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2018 and Rule 72 of the High Court Rules, 2021. On 23 February 2022 after considering written submissions by the applicant and both written and oral submissions by the second respondent’s counsel Mr. Madya, I delivered an ex-tempore judgment dismissing the application with costs. The applicant elected not to appear physically but opted in terms of s 29(4) of the Supreme Court Act [Chapter 7:13], to file written submissions. He has requested for written... More
On 4 July 2017, the Supreme Court acting in terms of s 175(4) of the Constitution referred a constitutional matter to this Court. The essence of its order is to seek from this Court an answer to the question whether or not s 27 of the Public Order and Security Act [Chapter 7.11], (POSA) is constitutional. More
HLATSHWAYO JA:This is a chamber application for condonation for failing to note an appeal within the prescribed time limits and extension of time within which to note an appeal in terms of r 43 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2018 (the Rules). The applicants seek an order in the following terms:
1. The application for condonation for non-compliance with r 38 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2018 be and is hereby granted.
2. The application for extension of time within which to file and serve a notice of appeal in terms of the rules be and is hereby granted.
3.... More
1. This is a chamber application in which the applicant seeks condonation for failure to comply with Rule 38 (1) (a) of the Supreme Court Rules, 2018 and for extension of time within which to file and serve a notice of appeal. The application is opposed. More
1. This is an appeal against the decision of the Labour Court (‘the court a quo’) wherein the court dismissed the appellants’ application for review after finding that the appellants had elected the wrong procedure in proceeding by way of review as opposed to an appeal. After hearing submissions by both counsel, the court dismissed the appeal and indicated that the reasons for the decision would be furnished in due course. The reasons follow hereunder. More
