On 13 March, 2017 I perused the documents filed of record, heard counsel and delivered an ex tempo judgment. It read:
“IT BE AND IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. The first and second respondents shall, within ten days of service of this order, provide the third respondent with sufficient police manpower and equipment to maintain the peace while the third respondent enforces the writ of ejectment in case number SC 45/12.
2. The first and second respondents shall pay costs of suit. [emphasis added]” More
On 30 November 2011, and after hearing viva voce evidence from the plaintiff and considering the fairly detailed submissions made by the plaintiff’s counsel I granted the following order: More
This matter comes before the Court on an exception raised by the defendant against specific claims pleaded in the plaintiff’s declaration. The defendant contends that certain claims - specifically claims 2, 3, 4, and 5 - fail to disclose a proper cause of action because they do not sufficiently allege the requisite elements of negligence or a special duty of care necessary for a delictual claim. The plaintiff, by contrast, asserts that the defendant’s unauthorized engagement with third-party suppliers, conducted without proper due diligence and in breach of the plaintiff’s internal procedures, caused quantifiable financial loss. This judgment addresses both... More
The Applicant in this matter seeks an interim order restraining the respondents from disposing of or transferring certain immovable property, known as Katamon Court, in Harare. The applicant also seeks a final order effectively transferring the said property into its name and ownership through the execution of a share subscription agreement.
In support of its claim, the applicant avers that the parties concluded a binding oral agreement in February 2005 for the sale of the property at the purchase price of $6 billion. The 1st and 2nd respondents deny any such binding agreement and dispute the applicant’s right to acquire... More
This is an appeal against the magistrate’s ruling sitting at Kadoma dismissing the appellant’s application for rescission of judgment on 15 December 2008.
The respondent Farai Ngorima is the registered owner of a certain piece of immovable property known as house number 3795 Ingezi Township Kadoma. He purchased the house from the late Monica Ruvimbo Dzinamarira on 7 March 2007 for $27 000 000-00. The property was registered in his name on 17 April 2007 under deed of transfer 000198/007 with the seller acknowledging that the whole of the purchase price had been paid. More
