Skip to document content Skip to main menu Skip to search

Supreme Court of Zimbabwe - 2017 January

4 judgments
Advanced search
All years
Filters
  • Filters
  • Judges
  • Alphabet
Sort by:
4 judgments
Citation
Judgment date
January 2017
Shah v Kingdom Merchant Bank Ltd. (Civil Appeal SC 451 of 2013; SC 4 of 2017) [2017] ZWSC 4 (31 January 2017)
Amendment to clarify unjust enrichment and fraud claims allowed; introduction of a prescribed theft claim was expunged.
Civil procedure — Amendment of pleadings — Order 20 r132 (amendments to determine real question in controversy) and r134 (substitution/inclusion of cause arising after summons) — distinction between clarifying poorly pleaded claims and introducing new causes of action — prescription bars revivification of extinguished substantive claims — unjust enrichment and fraudulent misrepresentation may be clarified by amendment, but prescribed theft claim cannot be introduced.
 31 January 2017
Crown & Another v Energy Resources Africa Consortium (Pvt) Ltd. & Another (Civil Appeal SC 693 of 2015; SC 3 of 2017) [2017] ZWSC 3 (30 January 2017)
An application brought in a company’s name without its authorisation is invalid and must be dismissed.
Company law – authority to sue – separate legal personality – a company cannot be represented in litigation without a board resolution; locus standi – shareholder company lacks standing absent legal interest; Companies Act ss169 and 170 do not validate unilateral acts of directors
 30 January 2017
Guoxing Gong v Mayor Logistics (Pvt) Ltd. & Another (Civil Appeal SC 17 of 2016; SC 2 of 2017) [2017] ZWSC 2 (30 January 2017)
A purchaser privy to a court order and caveat acquires no valid title; transfer is null and appeal dismissed.
Property law – double sale; caveat and court order – effect on transfer; bona fide purchaser with notice; defective title as nullity; punitive costs
 30 January 2017
Lungu & Others v RBZ (Civil Appeal SC 94 of 2016; SC 1 of 2017) [2017] ZWSC 1 (26 January 2017)
Labour Court may review arbitral awards; an arbitrator’s imprecise operative order can invalidate an otherwise permissible award.
Labour Court jurisdiction to review arbitral awards (s89(1)(d1), s92EE) — Review grounds: absence of jurisdiction, bias, gross irregularity — Arbitrator's terms of reference and limits — Operative award must be precise; fundamental misdescription (wrong commencement date; 'retrenched') can vitiate award — Scope and application of Works Council Agreement to fixed-term employees.
 26 January 2017