The first respondent brought an application in the court a quo for the provisional liquidation of the second respondent in terms of s 5 (1) (b) (iii) of the Insolvency Act [Chapter 6:07] (the Act). The section authorizes one or more members of a company to apply for an order to wind up a company in circumstances where it is just and equitable that the company be liquidated. Section 4 (1) of the Act clothes the first respondent, in his capacity as executor with the authority to apply for the liquidation of the second respondent as a debtor of the... More
This is an appeal against the whole judgment of the High Court (the court a quo) sitting at Harare, handed down on 11 May 2022, in terms of which it confirmed, on review, the judgment of the first respondent (the primary court) as being neither irrational nor grossly irregular. Aggrieved by the decision of the court a quo, the appellants have noted the present appeal. More
This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court dismissing the appellants’ application for review against the decision of the respondent cancelling the first appellant’s mining rights in Antelope 9-Reg No. 36034-Antelope 2,3,4,5 and 6 Reg No’s 33199, 33127, 33128, 33129 & 33130, Antelope East 2-Reg No-32200, Antelope East Extension & Antelope East Extension 2-Reg No’s 34385 & 34386, Antelope East-Reg No-32106, Antelope 11-Reg No-36036 (hereinafter referred to as the mining claims). More
The two deceased persons died painful deaths during their daily
routines of trying to make ends meet. The first appellant was arrested on 11 May 2018 and the
second appellant on 16 August 2019. Both appellants were charged with two counts of the
murder of the two deceased persons and by judgment delivered on 17 February 2020, the High
Court “the court a quo” found the appellants guilty and sentenced them to death. This is an
automatic appeal against both conviction and sentence. More
This is an appeal against the entire judgment of the High Court (“the court a quo”), wherein it dismissed the appellants’ point in limine that the respondents’ application before it was a nullity for non-compliance with r 59 of the High Court Rules, 2021, (“the Rules”). At the hearing of the appeal, Mr Zvobgo for the first and second respondents, raised a point in limine to the effect that the present appeal was fatally defective for the reason that it had been noted without the leave of the court a quo, as the appeal is against an interlocutory order. This... More
