Court Judgements
Browse Judgements by Year
[1] This is an appeal against a judgment of the Labour Court dismissing an application for the review of an arbitral award in favour of the first respondent. The second respondent is the arbitrator whose award is the genesis of the application for review. The arbitrator did not file papers in the court a quo and did not appear before this Court. As a consequence, there is only one respondent. After hearing the parties in this matter we allowed the appeal with costs. The substantive order will be set out in detail after the discussion of our reasons for judgment... More
This is an appeal against the whole judgment of the Labour Court, handed down on 25 August 2017, confirming a ruling by the fourth respondent, a labour officer that the termination of the employment of the first to third respondents by the appellant was unlawful. In consequence thereof, the appellant was ordered to reinstate the first to third respondents without loss of salary or benefits or, in the alternative, pay damages. More
Applicants in this matter filed an application for the review of a sale in execution by the Sheriff which applicants aver was not done in accordance with procedure. In other words, applicants aver that there were gross irregularities in the conduct of the sale in execution of their co-owned property. The applicant avers in the face of the application that an order is being sought in terms of the draft and that the grounds for review are as follows:
1) The respondents failed to follow the court rules regards attachment and sale of movable (sic) property.The 1st and 5th respondents... More
Applicants 1 to 10 are one faction of a trade union. Respondents 2 to 6 are the other. The trade union is the first respondent. The seventh respondent is the undertaking or industry in which the trade union is established. It is the employer. It is cited as a nominal party. It did not file any papers, electing to abide by the decision of the court. More
This is an urgent chamber application for an interdict. The relief sought by the applicant is couched in the following terms:
“Interim relief sought
(a) That the 1st respondent, his assignees or employees be and are hereby interdicted from carrying out any mining activities on Don Juan 46 situate in Zhombe Communal Lands, Zhombe, Kwekwe.
(b) The Sheriff of Zimbabwe by the powers vested in his office with the assistance of members of the Zimbabwe Republic Police be authorized to enforce clauses of the order in the event of non-compliance with the court order.
Terms of final order sought
(a)... More
On 24 April 2014, the City of Bulawayo woke up to the news of the horrific double murder of Mthabisi Dube and his girlfriend Lokukhanya Ncube. Their bodies were discovered in a grass filled drainage at the corner of Intemba and Rangemore Roads in Nkulumane 12. Lokukhanya had her skirt pulled up to her waist, her hands were tied together and the right side of her abdomen was ripped open with a sharp object. Her legs were also tied together. She had a deep cut in the neck. Mthabisi’s hands were tied from behind with a black shoe lace and... More
This matter is centred on an application for a declaratory order in the following terms:-
“IT IS ORDERED THAT
1. The application be and is hereby granted.
2. Applicant be and is hereby declared the legitimate holder of the demarcated rural stand in Mpandawana Village, Chief Gutu.
3. Respondent and all those claiming rights through him be and are hereby interdicted from executing the writ of execution issued in 2015 against the property of the applicant.
4. The parties be and are hereby ordered to maintain the boundaries demarcated by Chief Gutu against their stands.
5. Respondent be and is... More
