On 9 February 2018, the applicants filed an urgent Chamber Application for an order staying “proceedings” pending the hearing of an appeal in this Court under case number 847/2017. The first applicant is a self-actor who also purports to act on behalf of the second applicant. In the absence of a power of attorney authorising her to do so, the first applicant cannot lawfully represent the second applicant without violating ss 10 and 12 of the Legal Practitioners Act [Chapter 27.07]. More
This is an appeal against part of the judgment of the High Court Harare.
The first appellant, Shorai Nzara, (Shorai) is the mother of the second to fourth appellants to whom she donated the property that forms the subject of this dispute. The first respondent Cecilia Kashumba N.O. was the wife of the late Dzingai Kashumba and is the executrix dative of his estate. Dzingai Kashumba (Dzingai) entered into an agreement of sale with Shorai Nzara the original owner of the property at the heart of this seventeen-year-old dispute. The second respondent is the Registrar of Deeds who was cited... More
This is a hotly contested appeal against the whole judgment of the High Court sitting at Harare, and delivered on 30 October 2013. The epicentre of the dispute is a certain piece of land in the Goromonzi District known as the Remaining Extent of Stuhm measuring 583, 1360 hectares in extent registered in the name of TIBIC INVESTMENTS (PVT) LTD under Deed of Transfer 1724/2009. TIBIC INVESTIMENTS (PVT) LTD is an indigenous company in the sense that its shareholders and directors are indigenous citizens of this country. The historical background and factual basis of the case is by and large... More
1. This is a chamber application for condonation of non-compliance with r 37 (2) and extension of time within which to file the appeal. The application is purportedly brought in terms of r 43 (1) of the Supreme Court Rules, 2018 (the Rules). The application is opposed. More
BHUNU JA: This appeal from the High Court has its genesis in the Magistrates Court which acquitted both appellants on one charge of fraud as defined in s 136 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23] and, secondly, operating an unregistered trust in contravention of s 9 of the Private Voluntary Organisations Act [Chapter 17:05]. Aggrieved by the acquittal of both appellants on the firstcount the respondent appealed to the High Court (the court a quo). More
