At the end of the hearing of this matter, we allowed the appeal with costs. An order as set out hereunder was issued:
1. The appeal be and is hereby allowed with costs.
2. The judgment of the court a quo is set aside and in its place the following is substituted:
(a) The application for summary judgment is dismissed.
(b) The second defendant is given unconditional leave to defend the plaintiff’s claim. More
On 21 June 2023, the appellant amongst other prospective candidates, successfully lodged his nomination papers as a presidential candidate before the Nomination Court. The first respondent became aware of the appellant’s nomination and acceptance of candidature through the social media. He took exception to the acceptance of the appellant’s candidature.
In a letter dated 22 June 2023 addressed to the Chief Elections Officer, the first respondent stated that the appellant had not been resident in his constituency and in the country for a continuous period of eighteen (18) months. He further stated that the appellant did not therefore meet the... More
1. On 15 February 2019, the Administrative Court issued an order dismissing with costs, an appeal by the appellant against the decision of the first respondent directing the second respondent to award a tender to the third respondent. More
The first respondent approached the court a quo by way of an application seeking an interdict against the appellant and the second respondent barring them from entering its farm in Arcturus, Goromonzi and from laying any rights to a certain mining claim situated thereon. The first respondent also sought an order that the appellant and the second respondent stop all mining operations at the mining claim. In its founding affidavit deposed to by one Morrison Bimbi, the first respondent averred as follows: It was the owner of a certain piece of land called the remainder of Lot 4 of the... More
This is an appeal against the judgement of the High Court in Case No. HC 5569/17 in which the High Court dismissed an urgent chamber application seeking the stay of the appellant’s detention, which was ordered by the Commissioner -General of Police (the second respondent), pending the finalisation of an application for review by the High Court of the proceedings before the single trial officer (the first respondent). More
