Applicant sought relief through an urgent chamber application for the release into her control of four motor vehicles namely a Mercedes Benz E 320 AF1 5420 Mercedes Benz E 250 AFS 1338 Mercedes Benz C 220 D AFU 0067 and a Toyota Hulux Club Cab GD 6 AFN 7886.
The said motor vehicles were seized through a warrant of search and seizure issued in terms of sections 49 (1) (b) and 50 (1) (a) of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act [Chapter 9:07]. The vehicles are believed on reasonable grounds to afford evidence of the commission or suspected commission of... More
The applicants made separate applications for similar reliefs couched in the following terms: -
1. “The expulsion and termination of the applicants’ membership of Parliament on 5 May 2019 is a nullity and is therefore set aside.
2. The declaration made by the fifth respondent of 3 April 2020 and communicated to the Parliament of Zimbabwe, in respect of the applicants’ membership in terms of s 129 (1)(k) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe be and is hereby set aside.
3. The respondents, jointly and severally each paying the other to be absolved, must pay the costs of suit on a... More
The applicant and the first respondent are both in possession of Lease agreements entered into with the fourth respondents, over the same piece of property. Both claim that they have certain rights and interests over the property emanating from the lease agreements. The second to the fourth respondents have not filed any opposing papers nor did they attend the hearing. It is the representative of the fourth respondent who, by way of a letter dated the 11th of September, 2020, addressed to the Registrar of this court saidthat they are not opposed to the order being sought.
Initially this was... More
This is a landlord (respondent) and tenant (appellant) dispute. The parties entered into a verbal lease agreement in 2008 over premises cited as 38 Cameron Street, Harare. Respondent instituted proceedings in the magistrate`s court seeking the appellant`s ejectment plus ancillary relief. The respondent alleged breach of the lease agreement in that (i) appellant failed to keep premises in good repair, (ii) defaulted on payment of municipal charges (iii) illegally sublet the premises and (iv) effected unauthorised alterations to the premises. The respondent contested the suit. More
