At the conclusion of submissions by counsel, the Court delivered a unanimous ex-tempore judgment. Counsel for the first respondent has now requested written reasons for the ex-tempore judgment.
2. It was couched as follows:
“We hereby present the unanimous decision of the court.
(a) This is an appeal against the whole judgment of the High Court (the court a quo), in which it struck off the roll an urgent application seeking to interdict the respondent from evicting the appellant from a certain farm known as the Remainder of West Hay Sabona Bon without a court order.
(b) The court a... More
This is an appeal against part of the judgment of the High Court (the court a quo) handed down on 30 August 2023 granting to the appellant a decree of divorce and distributing the matrimonial assets of the parties to them. The part of the judgment being appealed against is the award of what has been, in essence, their matrimonial home, to the respondent, while according to the appellant a bed and breakfast business (B n B) consisting of a two roomed cottage that the parties constructed on a subdivision of the matrimonial home. More
On 24 August 2023, acting in terms of r 56 (2) of the Supreme Court Rules, 2018, the applicant filed the present chamber application for the review of the first respondent (taxing officer)’s decision. On 1 August 2023, the first respondent declined to award to the applicant the United States dollar denominated disbursements, which it had paid to its own counsel, at the interbank rate prevailing on the date of taxation. Instead, the first respondent awarded the applicant these costs in RTGS dollars at the interbank rate prevailing on the date on which the applicant had voluntarily paid counsel in... More
GARWE JA
[1] This is an appeal against the whole judgment of the High Court of Zimbabwe sitting at Harare granting the respondent’s claim against the appellant in the total sum of US$120 000 together with interest thereon and costs of suit. The amount represents land development levies for the period 2009 to 2013 which the respondent claimed were outstanding in terms of the Rural District Council Act, [Chapter 29:13] (“the Act”). In determining that the appellant was liable to pay the sum claimed by the respondent, the court a quo interpreted the word “owner” as defined in s 95... More
This is a review of taxation in terms of r 56 of the Supreme Court Rules 2018. The Rule provides that any party aggrieved by the taxation of a bill of costs shall give notice of review setting out his or her grounds of objection. Thereafter the matter shall be set down before a judge in chambers. More
