This is an appeal against the judgement of the High Court dismissing an application for the rescission of a default judgment granted in favour of the first respondent against the second respondent in Case No. HC 9554/16. The application was brought in terms of r 449(1)(a) of the High Court Rules 1971. The applicant in that matter sought the rescission of the default judgement as well as his joinder in the main proceedings. More
The appellant and the first respondent have engaged in a litany of disputes in the court a quo, all related to their respective entitlements to the mining claims that they operate on. The two mining claims are situate in Insiza District, Matebeleland South and are adjacent to each other. The appellant is the holder of mining claims known as Tigress, while the first respondent has been conducting mining operations on claims known as Lion West 25. More
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
