Court Judgements
Browse Judgements by Year
On 3 September 2012 this Court dismissed Respondent’s appeal against a decision by the Applicant to dismiss him from employment on the basis of misconduct. On 9 January 2013 Respondent applied for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against that decision. On 11 February 2013 Applicant filed its opposition to the application and served it on the Respondent on the same date. In terms of Rule 19 Respondent was supposed to file Heads of Argument within fourteen days of receiving the response. That was not done. Instead on 16 April 2013, way after the fourteen days within which Heads... More
On 24 July 2013 the applicant and the 1st respondent appeared before Professor LovemoreMadhuku (the Arbitrator) and consented to the following award:-
“Award
1. That the respondent be and is hereby ordered to do everything reasonably required to ensure that ZINARA’s offer of employment to all “tollgate staff” which will be effective from 1 October 2013 is on terms of permanent employment.
2. That each party pays 50% of the arbitration fees”. More
In this application the following relief is sought;-
“It is ordered that:-
1. The award of quantification of damages made by the second respondent on 28 October 2011 be and is hereby set aside.
2. The first respondent pay the costs of suit.” More
Section 3 of the Class Actions Act [Cap 8:17] provides as follows:-
“Application for leave to institute class action
(1) Subject to this section, the High Court may on application grant leave for the institution of a class action on behalf of any class of persons.
(2) An application for the institution of a class action –
(a) may be made by any person, whether or not he is a member of the class of persons concerned; and
(b) shall be made in the form and manner prescribed in rules of court. More
On 11th January 2013 Applicant filed an application for rescission of judgment. On 5th February 2013 Respondent filed a response in which she opposed the application. In due course the matter was set down for hearing. More
Respondent sued a non-existent company. The Registrar of Deeds and Companies confirmed in his letter of 4 October, 2013 that: More
This is an opposed application for a postponement. The application was granted in open court and reasons were given ex tempore in the presence of the parties and their legal practitioners. This was on 20 May 2013. More
