Law Portal
Zimbabwe

Welcome To Law Portal

Welcome, Guest!
[Help?]

Appeal, Leave to Appeal, Leave to Execute Pending Appeal re: Grounds of Appeal iro Belated Pleadings & Judicial Mero Motu

SC01-17 : JOSEPH LUNGU and OTHERS vs RESERVE BANK OF ZIMBABWE
Ruled By: GWAUNZA JA, PATEL JA and MAVANGIRA JA

This is an appeal against the judgment of the Labour Court setting aside an arbitral award in favour of the appellants which upheld their claim for the payment of arrear salaries and benefits.BackgroundThe appellants, being 153 in number, were employed as security guards on fixed-term contracts renewable every three months. ...
More

CC04-16 : SISTER BERRY (NEE NCUBE) and JESSE AARON BERRY vs THE CHIEF IMMIGRATION OFFICER and THE MINISTER OF HOME AFFAIRS
Ruled By: CHIDYAUSIKU CJ, MALABA DCJ, ZIYAMBI JCC, GWAUNZA JCC, GOWORA JCC, HLATSHWAYO JCC, PATEL JCC, GUVAVA JCC and MAVANGIRA AJCC

This is an application in terms of subsections 85(1)(a) and 85(1)(b) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (No.20/2013) (“the Constitution”). The first applicant is acting in both her own interest and that of her husband who is the second applicant.In their heads of argument, the applicants submit that they have ...
More

HH30-10 : TM SUPERMARKETS (PVT) LTD vs CHADCOMBE PROPERTIES (PVT) LTD
Ruled By: PATEL J and OMERJEE J

Objections as to Record of AppealIn the midst of the appeal hearing, after full argument by counsel for the appellant, counsel for the respondent raised the objection that the record of appeal was incomplete because the proceedings in the court a quo had not been transcribed, and because pages 3 ...
More

SC25-14 : DAVID GOVERE vs ORDECO (PRIVATE) LIMITED and REGISTRAR OF DEEDS
Ruled By: ZIYAMBI JA, HLATSHWAYO JA and PATEL JA

At the beginning of the hearing of this matter, counsel for the appellant sought to introduce a point of law, pertaining to the validity of the proceedings in the court below, as a new ground of appeal.For the reasons given at the hearing, we declined the application.
More

Appealed
SC65-14 : AIR ZIMBABWE (PRIVATE) LIMITED and AIR ZIMBABWE HOLDINGS (PRIVATE) LIMITED vs STEPHEN NHUTA and DEPUTY SHERIFF HARARE and SHERIFF OF ZIMBABWE
Ruled By: ZIYAMBI JA, GARWE JA and PATEL JA

The second preliminary issue raised by the first respondent was that the application was defective by reason of its non-compliance with Rule 241(1) of the High Court Rules which requires the applicant to set out the facts of his application in Form 29B.No mention was made of the second issue ...
More

Appealed
SC79-14 : DOUGLAS TANYANYIWA and DOUGLAS WARRIORS FOOTBALL CLUB vs LAWRENCE BERNARD GWARADA
Ruled By: ZIYAMBI JA, GOWORA JA and GUVAVA JA

Counsel for the appellants…, sought, at the outset of the hearing of the appeal, to amend the grounds of appeal by adding an additional ground which he claimed would read:“That the court a quo misdirected itself in making an order against the second appellant in favour of the respondent since ...
More

View Appeal
SC29-14 : PAUL SIMANGO vs MARTHA SIMANGO
Ruled By: ZIYAMBI JA, GWAUNZA JA and GOWORA JA

Regarding the rest of the parties' movable assets, it is evident from the evidence before the court that the appellant did not claim 50% of the value thereof. He is only doing so now - on appeal.This is something that, procedurally, and as a matter of law, he should not ...
More

SC50-14 : DIPAK PATEL and RAYMOND LOUW vs HAVELOCK COURT (PRIVATE) LIMITED and KANTORA (PRIVATE) LIMITED
Ruled By: GWAUNZA JA, PATEL JA and GUVAVA JA

Quite apart from the merits, the procedural point that arises on appeal is whether the invalidity of the four agreements was properly pleaded before the court a quo and duly determinable by that court in light of the original pleadings and the relief originally sought by the appellants. The appellants' ...
More

SC01-15 : FIRSTEL CELLULAR (PRIVATE) LIMITED vs NETONE CELLULAR (PRIVATE) LIMITED
Ruled By: ZIYAMBI JA, GARWE JA & PATEL JA

This is an appeal against the decision of the High Court granting summary judgment against the appellant in the sum of US$8,330,470=52 together with interest at 2.5% per annum above the prime overdraft Bank rate and costs of suit.The claim against the appellant arose from a Service Provider Agreement concluded ...
More

SC04-15 : AGSON MAFUTA CHIOZA vs SMOKING WILLIAMS SIZIBA
Ruled By: ZIYAMBI JA, GARWE JA and OMERJEE AJA

Although the issue as to the illegality of the agreement by virtue of its contravention of section 39 of the Regional Town and Country Planning Act [Chapter 29:12] was not argued in the court a quo, it is a point of law, and, there being no prejudice caused to the ...
More

SC57-15 : D. L. MAKGATHO vs OLD MUTUAL LIFE ASSURANCE (ZIMBABWE) LIMITED
Ruled By: GWAUNZA JA, GARWE JA and PATEL JA

THE METHOD OF PAYMENTThe appellant has submitted that it was wrong of the court a quo to have determined this matter without enquiring into the manner in which the respondent had paid for Fortune's study at the University of Cape Town.This submission need not detain this Court for two ...
More

SC60-15 : SIMON GAZI vs NATIONAL RAILWAYS OF ZIMBABWE
Ruled By: ZIYAMBI JA, GWAUNZA JA and MAVANGIRA AJA

The authorities cited and relied on by the court a quo (e.g. Dandazi v Wankie Colliery Co. Ltd 2001 (2) ZLR 298 H) arose from labour disputes, and, lastly, the appellant himself relied on one such 'ordinary' civil judgment for its contention that there are exceptions to the general principle ...
More

View Appeal
SC22-18 : J.C. CONOLLY AND SONS (PRIVATE) LIMITED vs R.C. NDHLUKULA and THE MINISTER OF LANDS AND RURAL RESETTLEMENT
Ruled By: GARWE JA, HLATSHWAYO JA and GUVAVA JA

SECTION 74 OF THE CONSTITUTIONThe appellant argued, for the first time in heads of argument, that, in terms of section 74 of the current Constitution, it had the right not to be arbitrarily evicted in the absence of a court order.It is unclear where this submission comes from.The issue is ...
More

View Appeal
SC54-18 : CITY OF HARARE vs FARAI MUSHORIWA
Ruled By: PATEL JA, UCHENA JA and ZIYAMBI AJA

At the hearing of the matter, counsel for the appellant raised the entirely new argument that the enabling law for present purposes was the Ordinance of 1911 and not the Urban Councils Act [Chapter 29:15]: therefore, paragraph 69(2)(e) of the Third Schedule to the Act could not be applied, as ...
More

Appealed
SC58-18 : BONNYVIEW ESTATES (PRIVATE) LIMITED vs ZIMBABWE PLATINUM MINES (PRIVATE) LIMITED and THE MINISTRY OF LANDS AND RURAL RESETTLEMENT
Ruled By: MAKARAU JA

The applicant has raised the ground of appeal that;“The court a quo erred and misdirected itself at law in finding that the appellant did not have locus standi in judico to institute action seeking the relief it sought against 1st respondent arising out of a purported compulsory acquisition of portion ...
More

SC66-18 : PATRICK MAKAVA vs ROSEMARY MUTINGWENDE and MINISTER OF LANDS AND RURAL RESETTLEMENT
Ruled By: GWAUNZA DCJ, GOWORA JA and MAKONI JA

GROUND NO. 1Counsel for the appellant contended that the application before the High Court was improperly authorized and was therefore invalid. Accordingly, he contended, there was no basis upon which the court a quo could relate to it. He submits this was because the power of attorney purporting to authorize ...
More

View Appeal
SC18-18 : SHORAI NZARA and AAROLA IDEHEN and AMOSOGE IDEHEN and OSARETIN IDEHEN vs CECILIA KASHUMBA N.O. and REGISTRAR OF DEEDS and MASTER OF THE HIGH COURT and TAFIRENYIKA KAMBARAMI
Ruled By: GARWE JA, GUVAVA JA and UCHENA JA

It must be noted that the respondents' counsel only raised the issue of vast and substantial improvements on the property from the Bar on appeal….,.Therefore, the claim for improvements, not having been properly raised…, cannot be taken into consideration by this court.
More

View Appeal
CC06-19 : BONNYVIEW ESTATE (PRIVATE) LIMITED vs ZIMBABWE PLATINUM MINE (PRIVATE) LIMITED and MINISTRY OF LANDS AND RURAL RESETTLEMENT
Ruled By: MALABA CJ and MAVANGIRA JCC and BHUNU JCC

It is settled law that a point of law can be raised for the first time on appeal if it involves no unfairness or prejudice to the party against whom it is raised. See Kufa v The President of the Republic of Zimbabwe