Electronic Court judgements

Browse Court Judgements by court

The applicant seeks an interdict against the respondent in the following:- “(1) The respondent be and is hereby interdicted from disposing of the applicant’s agricultural equipment in its possession per Annexure “A” to this application by public auction on 23 July 2011, or at any subsequent date except pursuant to a court order obtained from a court of competent jurisdiction. (2) The respondent shall (bear) the costs of this application”. More

Plaintiff and Defendant were married in terms of the Marriage Act [Chapter 5:11] on 8 September 2007. On 7April 2007 their daughter, Chesla Rufaro Katambarare was born. On 28March 2018, plaintiff issued out summons claiming a decree of divorce and ancillary relief. In seeking the dissolution of the marriage the plaintiff alleged that the marriage relationship between the parties has irretrievably broken down to such an extent that there are no prospects of restoration to a normal marriage relationship in that:- a) The plaintiff has lost love and affection for the defendant. b) The parties have been living separate lives... More

This was an application for the setting aside of an arbitration award More

The intriguing legal issue raised in this application is whether or not a deceased during their life time can donate inter vivos an immovable property registered in the name of a company and if so, the legal consequences arising therefrom. [2] The facts of this matter are presented very simply by the applicant. She is the daughter of the later Matthew Chimbgandah (the deceased) who passed away on the 14th of March 2019. His estate under DR. 805/19 is being administered by the 1st respondent in his capacity as the executor. More

It is pertinent to highlight the factual background to HC3727/18 in order to place the present application into perspective. The first to fourth respondents herein instituted motion proceedings in terms of Order 49 Rule 449(1)(a) of the High Court rules (the rules) under HC3727/18. The application sought the setting aside of a court order granted by TAKUVA J on 7 October 2013 under HC7402/13 on the basis that it was erroneously made. In HC 3727/18, the first to fourth respondents herein were the applicants, while the applicant herein was the first respondent. The fifth to ninth respondents herein were the... More