This is an application in terms of s 4(1) of Administrative Justice Act [Chapter 10:28] which seeks to set aside the decision of the first respondent to repossess applicant’s stand and sell it to second and third respondents. The brief facts giving rise to this application are that in March 2007 applicant accepted an offer from first respondent for the purchase of stand number 7403 Manyame Park. A lease agreement was executed between these two parties. In 2022 after visiting first respondent’s office applicant learnt that the lease agreement had been cancelled and his stand repossessed from him in 2019.... More
This is an action for divorce in which both parties agree that their marriage has irretrievably broken down. There are no children born of the marriage. The last sitting of a pre-trial conference was held on 10 July 2019 before CHIRAWU-MUGOMBA J and three issues were identified as the matter was referred to trial. The issues are;
a) Whether or not there is fault on the Plaintiff for the end of the marriage and the effect if any of same on the redistribution order of assets of the marriage.
b) What is a fair and equitable redistribution of the assets... More
The appellant was convicted of theft of motor vehicle after a trial at Masvingo. He was sentenced to 6 years imprisonment of which 2 years imprisonment was suspended for five years on the usual conditions. He appeals only against his sentence. More
On 5 August 2022, the plaintiff issued summons against the defendant claiming the total amount of one hundred thousand United States dollars being fifty thousand United States dollars for adultery damages and another fifty thousand United States dollars for loss of consortium and companionship. This was later amended following the defendant’s plea to fifty thousand United States dollars for loss of consortium and conjugal rights and fifty thousand United States dollars for contumelia. More
This application has been brought in terms of s 14 of the High Court Act [Chapter 07:06], and seeks certain declaraturs and consequential relief. From the draft order, the declaratory orders that the applicant has asked for can be summarized as follows:
1. That the first respondent did not validly serve the applicant with the application under HC 3647/17 and, as a result, the default judgment entered against the applicant on 22 November 2017, per MUREMBA J, was sought and granted in error. More
