The applicant sought the following relief by way of urgent chamber application, that:
“1 The Second Respondent and all those holding occupation under him be and are hereby interdicted and prevented from in any manner whatsoever;
a) Interfering with the Applicants’ (sic) normal farming operations on Mwonga Farm including the grading, baling and selling of tobacco;
b) Interfering with the Applicants’ (sic) manager, workers and invitees rights of access to the farm and all improvements, facilities and residences thereon;
c) Interfering with the Applicants’ (sic) intention and conduct in using, moving or dealing with its equipment as it deems fit... More
It is the plaintiff’s averment that between 4 January 2011 and 19 March 2014 it rendered legal services to the DWT Companies whilst they were under provisional judicial management. More
The Appellants issued out summons in the lower court for the eviction of first and second respondents from number 20625 Cranbrook Park Ruwa (the property) and claimed costs of suit on an attorney and client scale. Appellants are husband and wife. First and Second respondents are also husband and wife. In the Particulars of Claim, Appellants alleged that the property was initially bought by the second Appellant from third respondent sometime in the year 2002. It was nonetheless transferred to the first Appellant after a mix-up in sales. In 2015 the property was ceded by first Appellant to one Kelvin... More
The basis of this application is set out in detail in the affidavit deposed by one Phillip Chiyangwa. He is the director and alter ego of the first applicant. He avers that on first applicant’s behalf, he applied to first respondent for the purchase and development of 526 hectares of virgin land in Chegutu. It was intended to develop the land into residential stands.
In September 2001 first respondent’s council deliberated on the subject matter of the sale of 526 hectares. It approved the application by first applicant and notified it accordingly. He was, as chairman of first applicant, invited... More
On April 19 2016 the applicant issued summons against the respondents, claiming as against the first respondent, the sum of US$ 4, 660 117.49 being the amount due and payable in respect of work carried out by it at first respondent’s main campus at Masvingo. It also claimed interest on that sum at the prescribed rate plus costs of suit on a legal practitioner and client scale and collection commission calculated in terms of the Law Society By Laws of 1982 as amended by SI 157 of 2014.
The background facts to this matter are summarized More
