Law Portal
Zimbabwe

Welcome To Law Portal

Welcome, Guest!
[Help?]

Jurisdiction re: Approach, Concurrent Jurisdiction, Statutory, Procedural and Contractual Jurisdictional Ousting

HH84-12 : CHRISTOPHER BARNSLEY vs HARAMBE HOLDINGS (PVT) LTD AND ANOTHER
Ruled By: MATHONSI J

The applicant was employed as Group Engineering Director by the first respondent, which represented itself as a holding company comprising several subsidies with the second respondent as its Chief Executive Officer.The letter of his appointment containing the terms of employment, dated 7 May 2009, was signed by the second respondent ...
More

HH18-12 : PIONEER TRANSPORT (PVT) LTD vs DELTA CORPORATION LTD and DAVID LESLIE CRUTTEDEN
Ruled By: GOWORA J

On 1 January 2003, the applicant and the first respondent executed an agreement for the “supply of primary beverage transport services.”In terms of clause 8 of the agreement, the first respondent, Delta, appointed the services of the applicant, Pioneer, to distribute and deliver products on its behalf to various destinations.In ...
More

HH17-08 : GODFREY MAFUTA vs MADONDO GUTU MODERN STORES
Ruled By: MAKARAU JP AND MUSAKWA J

Inherent jurisdiction is a doctrine of the English common law that a superior court has the jurisdiction to hear any matter that comes before it, unless a statute or rule limits that authority or grants exclusive jurisdiction to some other court or tribunal. It is a general power of the court to control its ...
More

HH52-09 : NEIL BRUCE vs ECONET WIRELESS (PVT) LTD and CITY OF HARARE
Ruled By: OMERJEE J

The plaintiff is a private person, residing at Stand 64 of Lot 7A Colne Valley, commonly known as No.5 Wellburn Drive, Ballantyne Park, Harare. The first defendant, is Econet Wireless (Pvt) Ltd, a company duly incorporated in accordance with the laws of Zimbabwe and the second defendant is the authority ...
More

HH59-09 : TRUST CORPORATION SECURITIES (PRIVATE) LIMITED vs L.M. GABILO and DEVORGILLE KATSANZA
Ruled By: UCHENA J

Article 13 of the Arbitration Act [Chapter 7:15] provides as follows:“(1) The parties are free to agree on a procedure for challenging an arbitrator, subject to the provisions of para (3) of this article.(2) Failing such agreement, a party who intends to challenge an arbitrator shall, within fifteen days after ...
More

HH35-08 : BRETT LEONADES PISSAS vs HELEN LOUISE PISSAS
Ruled By: GOWORA J

The High Court is a superior court with inherent jurisdiction. Thus, it has the right to regulate its proceedings and judgements. This inherent jurisdiction includes the power to grant leave to have its judgments executed pending appeal.
More

HH120-12 : JOHN MAUCHAZA vs SARAH NOTA
Ruled By: GOWORA J and PATEL J

In terms of the Magistrates Court Act [Chapter 7:10] the jurisdiction of the court is provided for as follows:“11. Jurisdiction in civil cases(1) Every court shall have, in all civil cases, whether determinable by the general law of Zimbabwe or by customary law, the following jurisdiction -(a) Excepting any other ...
More

SC00-89 : ART CORPORATION LTD vs MOYANA
Ruled By: GUBBAY JA, McNALLY JA and MANYARARA JA

This is a labour dispute between the parties. A brief history of the matter is as follows:The appellant (the Corporation) employed the respondent (Mr Moyana) on 20 October 1980 as a Marketing Executive. The contract was a simple one, providing that his functions were to be assigned to him from ...
More

HH78-02 : CONSTANCE PANGETI vs THE GRAIN MARKETING BOARD
Ruled By: MAKARAU J

This is an application for review brought in terms of Order 33 of the High Court Rules. The facts of the matter are not in dispute. They are as follows:The applicant joined the respondent in 1990 as a typist. This appears to have been on a temporal basis, for, in ...
More

HH38-08 : IAN MAKONE vs MOVEMENT FOR DEMOCRATIC CHANGE (MDC) and CHAIRPERSON, ZIMBABWE ELECTORAL COMMISSION and REGISTRAR-GENERAL OF VOTERS
Ruled By: UCHENA J

The first applicant is a nominated Parliamentary candidate for the Movement For Democratic Change, the (“MDC”). He will stand for the Goromonzi West House of Assembly constituency seat in Mashonaland East Province. The second applicant is the Movement for Democratic Change, a political party which fielded candidates for the Presidential, ...
More

HH46-08 : PATRICK CHABVAMUPERU and OHERS vs EDMOND JACOB and OTHERS
Ruled By: MAKARAU JP

It is in my view trite that this court, being a creature of statute can only exercise those powers that are expressly granted to it by the enabling statute.
More

SC11-12 : JESTINA MUKOKO vs THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL
Ruled By: CHIDYAUSIKU CJ, MALABA DCJ, SANDURA JA, ZIYAMBI JA and GARWE JA

To discharge the constitutional mandate of enforcing or securing the enforcement of fundamental human rights and freedoms enshrined in the Constitution, the Court must exercise the power expressly conferred on it. Its duty is to determine the question whether the conduct of the State, forming the subject of complaint, contravenes ...
More

SC11-12 : JESTINA MUKOKO vs THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL
Ruled By: CHIDYAUSIKU CJ, MALABA DCJ, SANDURA JA, ZIYAMBI JA and GARWE JA

Section 24(4) of the Constitution gives the Court a wide discretion as to the choice of a practical and effective remedy which can appropriately redress a violation of a fundamental human right or freedom....,.In selecting an appropriate remedy under the Constitution, the primary concern of the Court must be to ...
More

HH11-08 : ALBERT MUGOVE MATAPO vs COMMANDER OF THE ZIMBABWE NATIONAL ARMY AND THREE OTHERS
Ruled By: HUNGWE J

The respondents raised points in limine objecting to the right of the applicant to approach this court since, being a soldier, he is barred by section 18(a) of the Defence Forces (Discipline) Regulations from demanding a right to be tried by a civil court. The answer to the point is simply that, as his status is ...
More

HH23-12 : AUSTIN ZVOMA vs LOVEMORE MOYO N.O. and NOMALANGA KHUMALO N.O .and BRIAN TSHUMA N.O. and SHEPPARD MUSHONGA N.O. and EDNA MADZONGWE N.O. and WILLIAS MADZIMURE N.O. and LYNETTE KARENYI N.O.
Ruled By: BERE J

On 12 December 2011, the applicant filed an application in this court under Case No. HC12336/11 seeking a prohibitory interdict against the respondents.The remedy sought was to prevent the respondents from moving or accepting any motion from any member of the House of Assembly to dismiss the applicant without the ...
More

HH99-09 : ALSPITE INVESTMENTS (PRIVATE) LIMITED vs TENDAYI WESTERHOFF
Ruled By: MAKARAU JP

The defendant was married to one Clemens Westerhoff in terms of the marriages Act [Chapter 5.11]. The marriage was dissolved by this court on a date that is not readily ascertainable, and is, any event, immaterial for the purposes of this trial. During the subsistence of the marriage, the parties had acquired an immovable property called Stand ...
More

HH103-09 : U-TOW TRAILERS (PRIVATE) LTD vs CITY OF HARARE and SUPERLUX (PRIVATE) LIMITED
Ruled By: MAKARAU JP

The brief background facts to this matter are largely common cause. I set them out as follows:In 1994, the applicant entered into a lease agreement with the first respondent in respect of certain premises situate at Number 9 Market Street, Eastlea, Harare (“the premises”).The lease agreement was constantly renewed over ...
More

HH150-09 : SOUTHBAY REAL ESTATE (PVT) LTD vs SOUTHBAY PROPERTIES (PVT) LTD and G RATISSO and CHIEF REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES
Ruled By: MAKARAU JP

The jurisdiction of this court over all matters and people in Zimbabwe is a power inherent in the court as the only superior court in the land with unlimited jurisdiction at first instance.It is not ousted save by the clearest language in a statute.In instances where this court has concurrent ...
More

HH57-10 : AFRICAN CONSOLIDATED RESOURCES PLC and OTHERS vs MINISTER OF MINES AND MINING DEVELOPMENT and SECRETARY FOR MINES AND MINING DEVELOPMENT and CHIEF MINING COMMISSIONER
Ruled By: UCHENA J

The first applicant is a public company listed on the London Stock Exchange. The second to fifth applicants (Dashaloo Investments (Pvt) Ltd, Possession Investments (Pvt) Ltd, Heavy Stuff Investments (Pvt) Ltd, Olebile Investments (Pvt) Ltd) are Zimbabwean companies duly incorporated in terms of the laws of Zimbabwe. They are wholly ...
More

SC46-15 : NATIONAL RAILWAYS OF ZIMBABWE vs ZIMBABWE RAILWAYS ARTISANS UNION AND OTHERS
Ruled By: ZIYAMBI JA, GWAUNZA JA and GUVAVA JA

This appeal, from the judgment of the Labour Court, raises the issue whether an Arbitrator can, in a compulsory arbitration, dictate the terms of a Collective Bargaining Agreement between the parties.Collective Bargaining Agreements are governed by Part X of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01] (“the Act”). They are to be ...
More

HH119-10 : THE STATE vs SEKAI NDORO
Ruled By: UCHENA J

The Juvenile Court made a more serious error when it heard the applicant's application when it had no jurisdiction to hear such an application. In terms of section 9(1) and (2) of the Guardianship of Minors Act [Chapter 5:08], the Children's Court can only hear applications for guardianship by relatives, other persons having care and ...
More

SC06-14 : ZIMASCO (PRIVATE) LIMITED vs MAYNARD MARIKANO
Ruled By: GARWE JA, GOWORA JA and OMERJEE AJA

This is an appeal against the judgment of the Labour Court dismissing an application by the appellant to file supplementary heads of argument and setting aside the decision of the appellant to terminate the respondent's contract of employment with itself.The facts of this case are largely common cause and are ...
More

HH148-10 : ZIMASCO (PVT) LIMITED vs FARAI MARIKANO
Ruled By: MTSHIYA J

This is an opposed application wherein the applicant seeks the following relief:“1. Respondent shall, within two hours of the service of this order on him, restore the following property to the applicant;(a) Mitsubishi Pajero 3.0 Registration Number AAV-5956;(b) Laptop HP Compaq 6720;(c) Cellphone Samsung D880;2. The cost of this application ...
More

HH151-10 : FRADRECK MUTAMBIRWA vs SHARON M. MUTAMBIRWA (NEE SHITO)
Ruled By: CHITAKUNYE J

The plaintiff gave evidence to the effect that they married here in Zimbabwe. He has lived in Zimbabwe all his life and he is thus domiciled in Zimbabwe. On that basis this court has jurisdiction to determine the case.
More

HH164-10 : KENNETH PATRICK McCOSH vs PIONEER CORPORATION AFRICA LIMITED
Ruled By: KUDYA J

The plaintiff, a former financial director of the defendant company, filed summons on 8 July 2009 seeking payment of the capital sum of US$72,334 and interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date when the amount fell due to the date of the issue of summons in ...
More

HH192-10 : AEPROMM RESOURCES (PVT) LTD vs SAMUEL MAZOWE and PATTERSON TIMBA and STEVENSON TIMBA and MAGGIE DITIMA and TONDESAI KAPONDO
Ruled By: MTSHIYA J

Counsel for the applicant, relying on Lloyd Guwa (2) Hazel Claris Kumire v Willoughby Investments (Pvt) Ltd SC31-09, said, unlike the High Court, the Supreme Court had no inherent jurisdiction. He said it was a creature of statute whose powers are clearly defined in the Supreme Court Act [Chapter 7:13].
More

HH208-10 : MIKE CHIVHANGANYE and OLIVIA CHIVHANGANYE vs OACRIDGE PROPERTIES (PVT) LTD and THE HONOURABLE MAGISTRATE CHIBANDA (N.O.)
Ruled By: MUTEMA J

Also, a baffling point is that whilst alleging the absence of jurisdiction by the Magistrates Court, the applicants, in their application for review in case 5780/2010, seek relief which includes remitting the matter to the same court before a different magistrate.
More

HH230-10 : KWIK-PAK (PRIVATE) LIMITED vs EDWARD MASHIRINGWANI and SHEPHERD MAKONI
Ruled By: KUDYA J

The third was that the court did not have jurisdiction to deal with the application. The last preliminary issue was that this court did not have authority to restore the status quo ante because in so doing it would grant the applicant the right to stay on the property. It seems to me that this court has the ...
More

HH232-10 : ANDREW RICHARD BRUFORD vs THE ATTORNEY GENERAL and THE MINISTER OF LANDS AND RURAL RESETTLEMENT and MAGISTRATE JARABINI and OTHERS
Ruled By: CHIWESHE JP

The applicant argues that a Magistrate Criminal Court has no jurisdiction to grant a civil remedy such as eviction. And, even if, according to the applicant, such criminal court were to put itself in the shoes of a civil court, it still would not have jurisdiction to order execution pending appeal as the monetary ...
More

HB02-11 : MELUSI NDLOVU vs P D S INVESTMENTS (PVT) LTD
Ruled By: MATHONSI J

The fact that the applicant tried his luck at the Magistrates' Court seeking the same relief does not oust his right to approach this court as the magistrate merely denied him audience but did not determine the matter. The same goes for the pending appeal as what is sought in this application is an ...
More

HB110-10 : HIGHLANDERS FC vs DYNAMOS FC and PREMIER SOCCER LEAGUE and BANC ABC (PRVIATE) LIMITED and CUTHBERT CHITIMA and DON MOYO, Chairman, Ad Hoc Arbitrators Committee and KENNEDY NDEBELE, PSL, C.E.O
Ruled By: NDOU J

Exclusion of Ordinary Courts This point is premised on Article 62 of FIFA Statutes which provides - “1. The Confederations, Members and Leagues shall agree to recognize CAS as an independent judicial authority and to ensure that their members, affiliated players and officials comply with the decisions passed by CAS. The same obligation shall apply to licensed match ...
More

Appealed
HH86-11 : MOVEN KUFA and THE VOICE FOR DEMOCRACY TRUST vs THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF ZIMBABWE N.O and THE PRIME MINISTER OF THE REPUBLIC OF ZIMBABWE N.O and OTHERS
Ruled By: CHIWESHE JP

At the hearing of this application, counsel for the respondents raised a point in limine as to the jurisdiction of the court to hear and determine what he referred to as a political question. He argued that Amendment Number 19 to the Constitution, which inserted Schedule 8 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe was driven by Parliament's ...
More

HH109-13 : HARARE AND DISTRICT HELLENIC COMMUNITY vs CREMION MAPFUMBA and ZIMBABWE ELECTRICITY AND TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION COMPANY and CITY OF HARARE
Ruled By: BERE J

As a court, I am frightened by the first respondent's counsel that sought to oust the jurisdiction of this court by making ill-advised reference to section 3 of the Water Act. Clearly, those were hysterical submissions and I have not allowed such to detain or obstruct me in my endeavour to do justice ...
More

HH586-14 : WELLINGTON TAKAWIRA vs CZI INCORPORATED (PVT) LTD
Ruled By: UCHENA J

The applicant was the respondent's employee. He resigned from employment by letter dated 1 October 2013. The respondent accepted his resignation by letter dated 6 January 2014. Through the same letter, the respondent acknowledged that it owed the applicant US$32,542=07 for salaries, pension refunds, cash in lieu of leave, and ...
More

Appealed
SC08-14 : SIMBA MUKAMBIRWA and OTHERS vs THE GOSPEL OF GOD CHURCH INTERNATIONAL 1932
Ruled By: GARWE JA, GOWORA JA and OMERJEE AJA

The High Court is a superior court with inherent jurisdiction to protect and regulate its own process and to develop the common law, taking into account the interests of justice.In the exercise of this inherent power, the High Court promulgates Rules of Court designed to expedite and facilitate the conduct ...
More

SC19-14 : DAVID TENDAYI MATIPANO vs GOLD DRIVEN INVESTMENTS (PRIVATE) LIMITED
Ruled By: MALABA DCJ, ZIYAMBI JA and GOWORA JA

In respect of the jurisdiction of the High Court, it is trite that the High Court is a superior court with inherent jurisdiction. In Guwa Anor v Willoughby's Investments (Pvt) Ltd 2009 (1) ZLR 380 GARWE JA described the powers and functions of the High Court as follows: “The High Court, however, is ...
More

SC33-13 : TENDAYI TAMANIKWA and FRANK TINARWO and EMMERSON PAMIRE and TENDAI MOMBESHORA vs ZIMBABWE MANPOWER DEVELPOMENT FUND
Ruled By: ZIYAMBI JA, GOWORA JA and OMERJEE AJA

In R v Pashda 1923 AD 281, INNES CJ stated…,: “…,. It is competent to Parliament to oust the jurisdiction of courts of law if it considers such a course advisable in the public interest. But where it takes away the right of an aggrieved person to apply to the only authority which can ...
More

SC51-14 : MADHATTER MINING COMPANY vs MARVELLOUS TAPFUMA
Ruled By: GWAUNZA JA, GOWORA JA and HLATSHWAYO JA

In Horace Nzuma and 2 Others v Hunyani Paper and Packaging SC137-11, the court issued an order in these terms: “The matter is remitted to the court a quo to exercise its equitable jurisdiction in determining the question of conversion of backpay into foreign currency and the applicable rate.” The effect of the orders given ...