On 1 may 2003 the applicant entered into a lease agreement with the first respondent in respect of the ground floor of premises known as Building No. 3 Located on Lots 24 and 26 Arundel Office park, Norfolk Road Mount Pleasant, Harare (the property). The lease agreement was for a period of three years, terminating on 30 April 2006. The lease agreement was, in terms of clause 2, renewable. Clause 2 of the lease agreement provides as follows:-
“2 LEASE
2.1. The Lessor lets to the Lessee who hires the premises for the lease period.
2.2. At lease three calendar... More
The applicant filed a court application claiming payment by the first respondent of the sum of US$20 000-00, together with interest and costs. This was money lent and advanced by the applicant to the first respondent in terms of a written agreement of loan signed by the parties on 17 August 2022. The first respondent opposed the application. After reading the documents filed of record and hearing argument from both sides, I granted the order sought. More
On the return day of the rule nisi I confirmed the provisional order and dismissed the counter application indicating that the reasons will follow. These are the reasons. This is the return day of the rule nisi issued by this court on 10 May 2007 interdicting the two respondents (applicants in the counter-application hereinafter referred to as “respondents” or “first and second respondents”) from using applicant’s (respondent in the counter-application hereinafter referred to as “applicant”) two Mercedes Benz motor vehicles registration numbers AAA 3378 and AAA 4417 and directing the respondents to surrender to applicant the said motor vehicles immediately.... More
On the 26th of July 2022, the parties appeared before me and made submissions on the preliminary points which had been raised by the 4th and 5th respondents. After hearing arguments from both sides, a judgment, number HH620/22, on the technical objections was subsequently delivered on the 15th of September the same year herein incorporated as part of this judgment. An application for leave to appeal was immediately noted in terms of the governing rules resulting in the filing of the same within the prescribed period. After several false starts the respondent opted to withdraw their application for leave to... More
This is a court application for review of proceedings conducted by the second respondent at Southerton District Headquarters on the 3rd of January 2018. The basis of the application is that the proceedings were irregular and the respondent failed to provide the record of proceedings. Further it was submitted that the record that was produced did not capture the proceedings properly. The other ground was that the applicant was denied legal representation at the hearing. Lastly it was contended that the applicant applied to have the matter postponed so that she could look for alternative legal representation but that application... More
