The Plaintiff claims a default judgment for damages arising from an assault perpetrated by the Defendant on the her and consequential damages thereto totalling US$ 35 948.50. The matter appeared on the unopposed motion roll on 9 March 2022.
The Plaintiff pleaded that on or about 1 July 2020 and at Matanda Shopping Centre at Shamva the Defendant unlawfully assaulted her by hitting her with bricks, fist and booted feet as well as some unknown blunt objects. The assault took place in public. Upon his arrest and trial the Defendant was convicted and sentenced to a non- custodial sentence. More
On 29 March 2008, the harmonised presidential, parliamentary and council elections were held in Zimbabwe. The petitioner stood as the candidate on behalf of the Movement for Democratic Change “MDC” for the House of Assembly seat for the Uzumba constituency. The respondent represented Zimbabwe African National Union [Patriotic Front}”ZANU PF” for the seat in that constituency. On 31 March, 2008 the respondent was declared the winner of that seat. More
: The plaintiff instituted an action against the defendants seeking an order for defamation damages in the sum of US$65 000. According to the plaintiff, the second defendant defamed her on 27 December 2021 through Whatsapp and on 6 June 2022 where the second defendant allegedly uttered defamatory words in the presence of church leaders. More
The first plaintiff is the widow of the late Benard Nyandoro while the first defendant is the son of the late Nelson Nyandoro. Bernard was the elder brother of Nelson. The tussle in the present matter is between the first plaintiff and her nephew, the first defendant, over the ownership of Stand Number 748 – 3rd Street Hatcliffe (748) in Harare. This immovable property was purportedly acquired and developed by Bernard but was registered in the name of Nelson. Nelson never resided at this property. He lived with his wife and children at another house in Hatcliffe that was registered... More
The brief background to the matter is that the applicant and second respondent are embroiled in a dispute over a piece of land. It shall not be necessary to bring forth the entire history of the dispute over this land except to say on 20 September 2017 the second respondent obtained an order in its favour against the applicant in Case HC 8487/17 for a spoliation order. More
