Welcome to Midlands State University Library

Court Judgements



Browse Court Judgements by court
This application arises from the judgment of my sister MAKARAU JP (as she then was) delivered on 21 November 2007 under case number HC 6844/06 (Judgment HH 81/2007). The applicants sought and were granted an order that certain immovable property, namely, stand 658, of Quinington Township of Subdivision 6 of Quinington of Borrowdale be transferred to themselves pursuant to a contract of sale entered into between them and the respondent. More

At the hearing of this matter, the respondent was automatically barred from appearing before the court as he had not filed his heads of argument within the time prescribed in the rules. A formal court application was filed on 4 September, 2007 seeking the up-liftment of the bar. The application was opposed. More

Plaintiff issued summons in which she sought a decree of divorce, custody and maintenance in respect of their minor child, a division of matrimonial assets and an order that defendant be ordered to purchase 63 120 First Mutual shares or alternatively pay their equivalent value and costs of suit. More

Plaintiff issued summons against the defendant seeking an order that defendant pays to her the sum of $7 000 000, 00 being damages for pain, shock suffering and contumelia suffered by her as a result of an unlawful assault perpetrated upon her person but certain members of the Zimbabwe National Army during the course and scope of their employment with the defendant on 4th June 2003 at 293/23rd Crescent, Glen View 1, Harare. Plaintiff holds defendant vicariously liable for the delict committed by members of his troop. More

At the base of a multi-layered series of interloculocutory applications lies the quest by applicant to set aside a confirmed judicial salein execution. The subject of that sale is her former matrimonial home, a property in which she claims (and seeks to rescue) a 50% undivided share. The property was attached and sold in 2015, and eventually transferred to first respondent in 2019. In that regard, applicant approached this court seeking leave to file out of time, an objection to the confirmation of that sale by second respondent. That application was opposed by first respondent who later moved the court... More