The applicant and the third and fourth respondents are embroiled in a mining dispute, which involves a mining claim known as Victory 100 “A”, Registration Number 42 931, Banket, Mashonaland West (the mine). The applicant holds a certificate of registration in respect of the said mine, which was issued on 20 July 2012. The third respondent on the other hand holds an offer letter in respect of a farm known as Subdivision 2 of Verblyden of Dunphaile in the Zvimba District of Mashonaland West Province (the farm). The offer letter was issued on 10 February 2020 and measures 87.50 hectares... More
The plaintiff and the defendant were married to each other in terms of the Marriage Act [Chapter 5:11] at Ruwa, Harare on the 14th March 1987. Their marriage was blessed with three children who are now all adults. After a period of about 20 years of married life the parties separated in December 2007 when, due to circumstances she could not withstand anymore, the plaintiff left the matrimonial home. More
Liability in this matter is admitted. The dispute concerns the measure of damages that is due to the plaintiff. On 1 June 2010 the parties filed a stated case, which reads:
1. It is common cause between the parties that on 15 November 2006 at No. 17 418 Flanagan Road Hillside Harare, the first defendant who was driving in the course and scope of his employment drove a Mazda B2500 registration number R58PY onto the plaintiff’s property. More
The applicant seeks a provisional order in the following terms:-
“TERMS OF THE FINAL ORDER SOUGHT
That you should show cause to this Honourable Court why a final Order should not be made on the following terms:-
1. That it is hereby declared that the first and second respondents, and all those acting through them, restore all the gym equipment unlawfully removed from the gym at Shop 15, Borrowdale Brook Shopping Centre.
2. Further, it is hereby declared that the first and second respondents and all those acting through them, be and are hereby permanently interdicted from disturbing and or... More
This judgment is a product of two matters that were consolidated and heard as one. The issues at stake and the interests of the parties involved herein converge. At the centre of the dispute in both cases is an Extra Ordinary General Meeting (EGM or the meeting) that dealt with the business of the fourth respondent in HC 1351/21 (Case 1), and the sixth respondent in HC 1270/21 (Case 2) on 8 February 2021. The applicants in both cases contend that the meeting did not comply with certain provisions of the Companies and Other Business Entities Act (the COBE or... More
