The applicant and first respondent are former spouses. The parties were married under customary law in 1996. Their marriage was blessed with two children but was apparently not registered. Their customary law union was purportedly dissolved in the Magistrates Court on 28 October 2010. The presiding magistrate in dissolving the customary law union indicated that as the value of the Property in question exceeded her monetary jurisdiction, she could not deal with the issue of the distribution of the immovable property. More
The facts of this matter can be summarised as follows. In 2012, the applicant was awarded a tender by the 2nd respondent for the design, configuration and commissioning of a pre-payment, vending and management system. This system is the one used in Zimbabwe for the electricity tokens for prepaid meters. The system was upgraded in April 2022. It came as a surprise to the applicant that the 2nd respondent decided to embark on a competitive bidding process to procure a similar platform as the current one in view of the upgrade. Such procurement is in breach of the PPDAA, which... More
This was an application for bail pending appeal which I declined.I hereby give my written reasons for so doing. The applicant,a German national who was visiting Zimbabwe was charged and convicted of unlawful possession of cocaine as defined in s 157 (a)of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform Act[Chapter 9:23] as read with Statutory Instrument (93) of 2010 (Dangerous Drugs Amendment Regulations No. 8) as read with part 1 s 4 (a)of the Dangerous Drugs Regulations Government Notice 1111/75. More
At the close of submissions, I invited counsel to file supplementary heads of argument. The heads aimed at clarifying the issue of whether or not the applicant, as director and shareholder of the first respondent, did have Locus Standi to petition the court as she did. The issue arose from my reading of Tett and Chadwick who, in their Zimbabwe Company Law, second edition, discussed categories of persons who can apply for the winding up of a company. More
Two ladies wanted to build a house. They only had the ground but no title to it. Keenly aware of price fluctuations, they bought building material from the defendant whilst waiting for title to the land to be processed. The defendant persuaded them to pay for the roof and roof trusses before-hand. They paid. When time to deliver arrived, the defendant demanded more money for the same material. The ladies refused and insist that since they have performed their side of the bargain, the defendant must deliver. They sued for specific performance.
The Evidence More
