The applicant appeared before the 1st respondent a Regional Magistrate sitting at Chinhoyi Court, facing a charge of rape in contravention of s65 of the Criminal Code.The trial proceeded with the 2nd respondent leading evidence until it closed its case. At the close of the 1st respondent’s case, an application was made on behalf of the applicant for discharge at the close of the state case. After considering both the applicant and the 1st respondent’s submissions, the 1st respondent dismissed the application and ordered the trial to continue. In dismissing the application the 2nd respondent found that there was prima... More
The appellant entered into a 20 year lease agreement with the 1st respondent. The lease agreement was for appellant to lease a commercial property known as Marbles Bar and Butchery otherwise known as stand number 13586 Glasglow Road Industrial Sites Chinhoyi “the property”.
According to the appellant on the 3rd of December 2022 the 1st respondent broke the entrance locks and changed the keys to all the doors on the property thereby despoiling the appellant. The 1st respondent did not have any lawful authority to act as he did. The founding affidavit then canvassed a number of issues that were... More
The common cause facts are that a vehicle, Isuzu KB single cab registration number DZT 234L with a venter box trailer registration number BKZ 2257L with temporary import permit reference number ZWBBPV17711 of 29.05.2022 issued in the name of a South African national, Mteki Zotha found its way across the border between two countries into Zimbabwe. The vehicle was in the custody and possession of the applicant. More
This court has been asked by the applicant to review the decision of the respondent of the 14th of October 2022, stamped on the 30th of November, 2022, on the basis of gross irregularity and unreasonableness as well as illegality. The application has been brought in terms of s27 of the High court Act [Chapter, 7:06] as read with s4 of the Administrative of Justice Act [Chapter 10:28]. It is contested. More
Defendant does not deny signing the acknowledgement of debt and its validity but challenges the same on two grounds. Firstly, he states that the affidavit was entered into under duress. The amounts reflected therein are usurious, inflated and exaggerated as they did not reflect the actual amount he borrowed and the attendant interest. He further avers that the capital debt he owed which he had borrowed amounts to US$2 300,00 to be paid with an additional interest of 35% translates to total amount of US$3105.00 according to his calculations. The amount was to be paid back in three instalments of... More
