Welcome to Midlands State University Library

Court Judgements



Browse Court Judgements by court
1. This is an appeal against the whole judgment of the Fiscal Appeal Court HH 20/20 dated 8 January 2020. The court a quo dismissed the appellant’s appeal against the decision of the Commissioner in respect of assessed tax and confirmed its amended income assessment made by the Commissioner on 2 September 2015. 2. The appellant is a company, with limited liability, duly incorporated in terms of the laws of Zimbabwe. It carries on the business of mining platinum in an area known as Middleridge Claims in Zimbabwe. The appellant and a related company known as Southridge Limited are subsidiaries... More

This is an opposed chamber application in terms of r 43 of the Supreme Court Rules 2018, for condonation and extension of time within which to note an appeal. More

MUSAKWA JA: This is an opposed chamber application for condonation for non-compliance with the Supreme Court Rules, 2018 and for extension of time in which to appeal made in terms of r 43. The intended appeal is against a judgment of the High Court handed down on 17 February 2021 upholding the respondent’s application for a compelling order. More

This is an application for joinder wherein the applicant seeks to be joined in two appeals pending before this Court, that is, SC 304/20 and SC 326/20. The facts leading to this application may be summarised as follows: The applicant was a holder of an offer letter in respect of Plot 4of Glebe Farm, Goromonzi. The second,third and fourthrespondents were also holders of offer letters in respect of separate plots on the same farm. The fifth respondent is the authority which issued the offer letters to the applicant and the second, third andfourthrespondents. More

On 11 March 2015, the High Court granted part of the claim sought by Valentine Ziswa and his wife Margaret Ziswa (the cross appellants) against Graeme Shaun Chadwick and Landos (Pvt) Ltd (the cross respondents). The court a quo dismissed the claims of the cross appellants as against the second cross respondent in their entirety and granted part of the claims as against the first cross respondent. The cross appellants seek a reversal of the dismissal orders issued a quo. More