On 1 September 2004, one C A. Banda, acting as an arbitrator between the above parties, made available his award in which he upheld the agreement of sale and construction between the parties. In his award, he ordered the applicants to transfer certain piece of land to the respondent and to complete the construction of developments on the piece of land as per the agreement. More
After his trial on 9 June 2014 and at Mbare Magistrates Court, the appellant was convicted of theft in contravention of s 113 (2) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23] and sentenced to 30 months imprisonment of which 12 months imprisonment were suspended for 5 years on condition of future good conduct with the remaining 18 months being suspended on condition of restitution. More
The first and second applicants are members of the third applicant, an unincorporated association. The third applicant approached the court in terms of Order 2A of the High Court Rules, which recognizes its status as such. The first respondent is an administrative body tasked with providing services for residence of Harare. It is established in terms of the Urban Councils Act . One of its major functions is the regulation of the disposal of land that falls under its jurisdiction. In casu, it stands accused by the applicants of surreptitiously selling a piece of land to the second respondent. It... More
In March 2009, the applicant approached this court on a certificate of urgency and obtained a provisional order calling upon the respondents to show cause why they should not be ordered to release certain items of household goods and effects whose details were listed in an annexure to the application. As interim relief the second respondent was ordered not to sell or dispose of any of the property on the schedule. The second respondent was also restrained from releasing any of the property to anyone other than the applicant. More
The applicant is a company duly incorporated according to the laws of Zimbabwe. It specializes in electronics, solar and gas appliances. First, second and third respondents are ex-employees of the applicant. Upon leaving employment, first and second respondents founded the fourth respondent, whose line of business is more or less similar to that of the applicant. Fourth respondent was incorporated according to the laws of Zimbabwe. The applicant accuses respondents of certain business malpractices that it finds synonymous with unlawful competition and therefore a threat to its own business. For that reason, it approached this court seeking an interdict against... More
