Audi alteram partem rule

Mhlanga v Zimbabwe Land Commission & 2 Others (HMA 54-19, HC 50/18) [2019] ZWMSVHC 54 (13 November 2019);

TANDIWE MHLANGA      

versus

ZIMBABWE LAND COMMISSION

and

MINISTER OF LANDS, AGRICULTURE & RURAL RESETTLEMENT

and

MUNASHE SHOKO

 

 

HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE

MAFUSIRE J

MASVINGO, 2 February 2019

 

Date of written judgment 13 November 2019          

 

Opposed application

 

Mr E. Chibudu, for the applicant

Mr T. Undenge, for the first & second respondents

No appearance for the third respondent

 

 

Ex- Constable Makumbi v The Commissioner General of Police & 2 Others Ex-Sergeant Mafenya v The Commissioner General of Police & 2 Others (HB 1-19, HC 1229/17; HC 1214/17) [2019] ZWBHC 1 (10 January 2019);

EX-CONSTABLE MAKUMBI                                                                  HC 1229/17

Versus

THE COMMISSIONER GENERAL OF POLICE

And

THE CHAIRPERSON OF THE

POLICE SERVICE COMMISSION

And

THE MINISTER OF HOME AFFAIRS

 

 

 

EX-SERGEANT MAFENYA                                                                     HC 1214/17

Versus

Detective Constable Mujabuki v Superitendent Gudo (HB 148/17, HC 118/17) [2017] ZWBHC 148 (08 June 2017);

DETECTIVE CONSTABLE MUJABUKI

 

Versus

 

THE TRIAL OFFICER – SUPERITENDENT GUDO

 

And

 

THE COMMISSIONER GENERAL OF POLICE

 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE

MAKONESE J

BULAWAYO 2 & 8 JUNE 2017

 

Opposed Application

 

N. Mugiya for the applicant

L. Musika for the respondents

T.M. Supermarkets (Private) Limited v Nkomo & 2 Others (SC 26/18, Civil Appeal No. SC 164/16) [2018] ZWSC 26 (08 May 2018);

REPORTABLE        (19)

 

T. M.     SUPERMARKETS     (PRIVATE)     LIMITED

v

  1. ITAYI NKOMO(2) THEMBINKOSI NYATHI (3)NICHOLAS KHUMBULATSHILI

SUPREME COURT OF ZIMBABWE

GARWE JA, GOWORA JA & BERE AJA

BULAWAYO: NOVEMBER 28, 2016 & MAY 8, 2018

T. Mpofu, for the appellant                                                                                                 

Nyahondo Farm & 3 Others v Birketoft (HH 214-18, HC 4962/17) [2018] ZWHHC 214 (25 April 2018);

NYAHONDO FARM

and

KIM BIRKETOFT

and

MELLISA BIRKETOFT

and

VANESSA BIRKETOFT

versus

DENISE ROSAMOND BIRKETOFT

 

 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE

MWAYERA J

HARARE, 26 January 2018 and 25 April 2018

 

 

Opposed Matter

Advocate T. Magwaliba, for the applicants

Matizanadzo, for the respondent

 

 

Rodwell Chitiyo N. O. v Chiguba & 2 Others (HH 92-18, HC 3856/17) [2018] ZWHHC 93 (19 February 2018);

RODWELL CHITIYO N.O.

versus

EMMANUEL MANDIPA CHIGUBA

and

DAVID KADZERE

and

DOREEN KADZERE

HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE

CHIWESHE JP

HARARE, 14 November 2017 and 19 February 2018

Opposed Matter

Adv T. Zhuwarara, for the applicant

Prof. L Madhuku, for the respondents

            CHIWESHE JP:  This is an application for rescission of judgment in terms of r 449 of the High Court rules.

            Rule 449 (1) (a) reads as follows:

Hippo Valley Estates Limited & Another v Minister of Environment, Water & Climate (HH 235-18, HC 7770/16) [2018] ZWHHC 235 (03 May 2018);

The court considered an application to set aside the National Water Authority Regulations and tariffs on the ground that they were ultra vires and violated the applicants’ rights. 

The applicants’ business operations involved sugar-cane growing and sugar processing. They concluded two agreements with the Zimbabwe National Water Authority (ZINWA), which related to the supply of water. It was a term of the agreement that the parties would, together, review charges for raw water, and should they fail to agree, the respondent would fix the prices.  Subsequently, ZINWA addressed a letter advising the applicants of their intention to review the charges. The respondent unilaterally increased the tariffs and failed to notify the applicants. The respondent argued that in terms of the ZINWA Act, she had the authority to impose tariffs for water charges and that the regulations did not violate the applicants’ rights. 

The court considered whether the respondent had acted lawfully in imposing the water tariffs. It found that the government reviewed the water charges, and not ZINWA which was lawfully established to review the tariffs in as far as the applicant was concerned.  

The court found that the respondent could not unilaterally increase water tariffs, unless ZINWA had made application to it to justify the increase. In this case, the respondent failed to notify the applicants, nor did she give them an opportunity to respond. The court concluded that the respondent acted ultra vires by increasing the tariffs and her actions were unlawful. Accordingly, the application was upheld

HIPPO VALLEY ESTATES LIMITED

and

TRIANGLE LIMITED

versus

MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENT, WATER AND CLIMATE

 

 

HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE

MANGOTA J

HARARE, 20 February, 2018 and 3 May, 2018

 

 

Opposed application

 

 

T Magwaliba, for the applicants

E Mukucha, for the respondent

 

 

Subscribe to Audi alteram partem rule