The background to this matter is that sometime in 2006, the first respondent purchased five commercial stands in Nyazura from the second respondent and paid for them in full. Upon commencement of development on the allocated stands, one Mr Mukada indicated to the first respondent that he had been allocated a portion of the same stands, thereby essentially constituting a double sale. Upon enquiry, the second respondent admitted that it had erroneously made a double sale. In a bid to cure the error, the second respondent allocated new stands to the first respondent in 2014. Just as the first respondent... More
At the hearing, the appeals were consolidated with the consent of the parties,and heard in the following manner; the appellant in SC 109/21 made submissions as the first appellant, the appellant in SC 15/21 as second appellant, and the appellant in SC 17/21 as the third appellant. The first to third respondents in all the appeals remained as previously cited, with the Registrar of Deeds being the fourth respondent, though there was no appearance on his behalf. Although there were three different appeals attacking the same judgment, I intend to address all the appeals in one composite judgment as the... More
This appeal is against the decision of the High Court of Zimbabwe handed down on 14 November 2018 upholding a preliminary point taken by the respondent that the appellant, who was the applicant in those proceedings, had no locus standi to institute legal proceedings against the respondent. At the centre of the dispute between the parties was the question whether the appellant was entitled to sue the respondent on the basis of the stipulatio alteri doctrine. More
This is an appeal against a judgment of the High Court sitting at Harare handed down on 8 August 2018 dismissing an application for joinder of the eighth respondent in a pending matter instituted by the appellant in the High Court. More
This is a chamber application in terms of r 43 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2018 for condonation of the failure to comply with r 38 (1) of the same Rules and an extension of time in which to appeal. The applicant seeks an order in the following terms:
1. The application for condonation for non-compliance with Rule 38(1)(a) of the Supreme Court Rules, 2018 (Statutory Instrument No: 84 of 2018) be and is hereby granted.
2. The application for extension of time within which to file and serve a notice of appeal in terms of the rules be and... More
