Court Judgements
Browse Judgements by Year
This is an application for quantification of damages. This Court, in an Order dated 23 May 2022, determined that Applicant be reinstated into her former position without loss of salary and benefits. Respondents declined to reinstate her. Hence the present application. More
Applicant has some mining rights in farm number 41 Vuti Karoi, literally, owned by virtue of an offer letter by the first respondent. Inherent in such scenarios is discord and conflict. The second to fourth respondents are cited in their official capacities in their respective portfolios. The second to third respondents are responsible for the issuance and resolutions of disputes of mines and minerals against the underpinnings of the Mining and Minerals Act [Chapter 21:05]. More
This is an appeal against an award by a labour officer. Before the appeal could be heard two preliminary points were taken on behalf of the respondent. These are that: (i) the appellants have not complied with Rule 11A of the Rules of this Court; and (ii) the prayer is defective. More
The matter be and is hereby remitted for the court a quo to determine the following issues:
a) Whether damages should be awarded to the respondent for the period March 2009 to March 2019 payable at the rate of 1:1 between the US Dollar and the Zimbabwean dollar or at the prevailing inter-bank rate.
b) The damages and back-pay in lieu of reinstatement taking into account mitigatory factors, if any.
c) Whether the respondent should be paid back-pay for the period 11 October 2012 to 12 March 2018 during which he did not prosecute his appeal. More
This is an appeal against refusal of bail by a Magistrate sitting at Karoi Magistrates court on the basis that the appellants are likely to abscond. The appellants appeared before the Magistrate jointly charged with fraud in contravention of s136 of the Criminal Law [Codification and Reform] Act (Chapter 9:23). The 1st appellant is a farmer in Karoi and the 2nd appellant is employed by Agritex.
The background facts are that the 1st appellant misrepresented to the Agricultural and Rural Development Authority (ARDA) that he was capable to farm 20 hectares of sorghum on his farm and 60 hectares of... More
Possession of 6,5kg of dagga invariably attracts a sentence in the range of 36 months imprisonment with a portion suspended on the usual conditions where the accused is a first offender. In this case the appellant admitted possession of the dagga. He produced a paper trail of documents that showed that he was taking the dagga to South Africa to an identified company for testing and research. This was not disproved by the State. Where an accused presents the reason for possession, it is incumbent upon the trial Court to take that explanation into consideration in sentencing the accused. In... More
On the 4th November 2021 at Harare, S. Nehohwa, in her capacity as a Designated Agent (DA) made a determination. She ordered appellant (employer) to pay respondent (employee) various amounts of money in respect of the salaries and benefits of the unexpired portion of the parties’ employment contract which had been “unlawfully” terminated. More
