The applicant approached this court seeking an order to rescind the order granted by this court on 1 April 2009 in HC 6379/07. He approaches the matter from two fronts He seeks rescission in terms of r 63 as well as in terms of r 449 of the High Court Rules (1971) (the rules). His basis for seeking the order is that he was not aware that the matter had been set down for a pre-trial conference. He did not receive the correspondence from his legal practitioners advising him of the set down date. He would receive correspondence from his... More
The applicant is a beneficiary under the government land reform programme (Phase (1) Model A2 Scheme. He has produced an offer letter dated 2 October 2003 duly signed by the then Minister of Lands Agriculture and Rural Resettlement Dr J.M. Made the then acquiring authority in terms of which he was offered subdivision 1 of Arden Estate in Zvimba District of Mashonaland west Province.
Following the recent Constitutional Amendment number 17 which had the effect of government lawfully acquiring the land in question the applicant was again reoffered the same piece of land by an offer letter dated 10th November... More
On 30 November 2005 the first respondent- Bell Inn (Pvt) Limited was granted a spoliation order by GOWORA J in the following terms:
“INTERIM RELIEF GRANTED
Pending determination of this matter, applicant is granted the following relief:
1. That 1st respondent is directed to remove himself and property and all persons holding through him from Arden Estate within 24 hours of the date of service of this order.
2. The Deputy Sheriff is authorised to evict 1st respondent and all persons holding through him from the farm.
3. That 1st respondent is interdicted from interfering with applicant’s farming activities.
4.... More
This is a chamber application for dismissal of an application for stay of execution for want of prosecution in terms of s 236 (3) (b) of the High Court Rules, 1971. More
The plaintiff issued summons claiming:
“(a)Judgment in the sum of $479 215.27(four hundred and seventy nine thousand, two
hundred and fifteen United States dollars and twenty seven cents) as against the 2nd
and 3rd defendants, jointly and severally each paying the other, being amounts paid by
the plaintiff for onward transmission to the 1st defendant which amount, the
defendants unlawfully converted to their own use; More
