The applicant filed this urgent chamber application for an indict. The
papers were initially placed before me on 28 March 2013. Miss Makamure applied for a postponement on the grounds that Mr Tandi who was supposed to handle the matter had gone to Marondera. Mr Jori did not oppose the application and the matter was subsequently postponed by consent to 7 May 2013 for argument. More
Law is not a static discipline. It moves and changes in accordance with a given society’s stage of development. It changes in such a way that what society regarded as lawful yesterday may not be lawful on the following day and vice versa. Its movement and changes are not without reason. They assist people in whose society the changes and movements occur to resolve disputes which arise between, and amongst, them with a certain degree of clarity. They are, therefore, a dispute-resolving mechanism which society puts into place from time to time for the good of its own members. More
On 27 April, 2021 the applicant sued the respondents under HC 1789/21. He moved for the eviction of the respondents from the Remaining Extent of Kilmacdough Farm (“the property”). The property is in the district of Zvimba which is under Mashonaland West Province. He couched his draft order in the following terms:
“IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1. The Application for eviction is hereby granted.
2. The 1st Respondent, 2nd and 3rd Respondents and all those claiming occupation through them be and are hereby ordered to vacate from the Remaining Extent of Kilmacdough Farm in Zvimba District of Mashonaland West Province... More
The petitioner and the first respondent were contestants for the Bindura South house of assembly constituency in the March 29 harmonised elections. The petitioner was ZANU (PF’s) candidate. The first respondent was MDC Tsvangirai’s candidate. The first respondent won the election. The petitioner is challenging the first respondent’s election. The second respondent was responsible for the running of the elections and is being sued in that capacity. At the hearing of the preliminary issues the petitioner withdrew against the second respondent. I will therefore refer to the first respondent as the respondent as he is now the only respondent in... More
This is an opposed chamber application for condonation for non-compliance with r 55 (5) of the Supreme Court Rules 2018, and the reinstatement of the applicants’ appeal under SC 219/23 which was by operation of law deemed abandoned and dismissed in terms of r 55 (6). The reinstatement is being sought in terms of r 70 (2) of the; afore-said rules. More
