The plaintiff issued summons out of this court on 9 December 2011 seeking the eviction of the defendant and all who claim occupation through him from Stand 271B St Mary’s Zengeza Chitungwiza, payment of rentals of US$100 per month from 1 October to 30 November 2011 and holding over damages from December 2011 to the date of eviction, interest at the prescribed rate and costs on the scale of legal practitioner and client. The defendant contested the matter. More
What started as an ordinary maize growing contract which the applicant and the first respondent signed developed into a bruising legal battle between them. They signed it on 30 September, 2013. They earmarked it for the 2013/2014 farming season.
In terms of the contract, the first respondent advanced inputs and cash to the applicant. It advanced the equivalent of $147 627.44 in cash and kind.
The advanced inputs and money aimed at enabling the applicant to grow and deliver to the first respondent 650 metric tonnes of maize. This was to be delivered on or before 31 July, 2014. The... More
The plaintiff in this action matter is Mabel Thandiwe Maigurira N. O, a female adult of Harare. She instituted this action in her capacity as the curator ad litem for the Estate of Late Edmund Maigurira. When the summons in the matter was first issued, the plaintiff was Edmund Maigurira. He passed on before the case had been completed. Following his death, one Kurauone Keith Maigurira was appointed as the curator ad litem for the estate of the said Edmund Chenjerai Maigurira by order of Mushore J dated 8 March 2021. At the commencement of the hearing of the matter,... More
This is an application for the review of the Master’s decision of 3 September 2004 in which he approved the award of house number 1242 Unit A Chitungwiza (the immovable property) by Joshua Songore to Josiah Gweme. Josiah Gweme (the first respondent) counterclaimed for the eviction of the applicant from the immovable property. More
1. The applicant brought an application in terms of s 236(4) (b) of the High Court Rules, 1971, (the Rules). She seeks an order for dismissal of the respondent’s case on the premise that he failed to pursue an application he filed by neglecting to set it for hearing entitling her to apply for dismissal for want of prosecution.
2. Rule 236(4) stipulates as follows;
“(4) Where the applicant has filed an answering affidavit in response to the respondent’s opposing affidavit but has not, within a month thereafter, set the matter down for hearing, the respondent, on notice to the... More
