By consent of both parties the two matters were consolidated as they deal with the same issues and relate to the same respondents. Although both matters were filed as urgent chamber applications, the resolution of the matter delayed partly due to some attempts to engage and reach an out of court settlement. The efforts unfortunately did not make headway. More
The applicants were placed on remand jointly charged on one countof armed robbery as defined in s126 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act (Chapter 9:23 ) and one count of unlawful possession of a firearm without a licence in contravention of s4(1) of the Firearms Act (Chapter 10:09). They applied for bail pending trial separately. For convenience, the two records were consolidated by consent for the purposes of disposing of the application. More
The applicant was married to the late Duggan. They later divorced. During the subsistence of their marriage they acquired certain five pieces of property known as stands 1 to 5 of Wilmar Park, Banket “the properties” registered in their joint names. The properties are at the centre of this dispute. More
The appellant was convicted after a trial on two charges of theft and escaping from lawful custody in contravention of s113 (1) and s185 (1) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23]. On the first count he was sentenced to 6 months imprisonment of which 3 months imprisonment was conditionally suspended on condition of good behaviour the remaining 3 months imprisonment was suspended on condition of restitution. In respect of the second count, he was sentenced to pay a fine of ZWL$ 30 000 in default of payment 30 days imprisonment. More
The plaintiff instituted this civil action for the eviction of the first defendant from property house number,16 fifth Street Mhangura coupled with a claim of holding over damages in the sum of USD100.00 from the 1st of May 2020 to the date of eviction.
[2] In her plea the first defendant claims that the property in question, should have been made part of her retrenchment package and she should have been offered the right of first refusal before the property was purportedly sold to the plaintiff by the second defendant. In addition, she challenges the existence of a fulfilled agreement... More
