The first, second and third applicants approached this court on an urgent basis seeking an order for the stay of execution of judgment. More particularly, the applicants’ provisional order is as follows:
“TERMS OF FINAL ORDER
That you show cause to this Honourable Court why a Final Order should not be made as set out in the Interim Relief granted hereunder;
1. That the Respondents be and are hereby ordered and directed to stay the execution of Applicants’ movable and immovable properties, pending the outcome of the Application for Rescission of Judgment instituted by Applicants against 1st Respondent.
2. The... More
Tinashe Mugabe, through the applicant, has commanded attention in the recent past. His name has been synonymous with paternity results from DNA testing. Accounts or videos of couples in dispute or doubt about the parentage of some offspring have been posted in the media. DNA results from some paternity tests would invariably put to rest any such disputes or doubts. Docudramas, commentaries, sketches, jokes, anecdotes and the like have been made about Tinashe Mugabe’s activities, invariably generating much controversy and occasionally ruffling some feathers. The respondents stopped him. They first suspended his operations and then went on to cancel the... More
This is an application for summary judgment. The applicant filed summons for the payment of USD$50 000 being money advanced to the respondents insolidum as applicant’s capital contribution towards a joint venture that was to be formed by the parties. On the principal amount, applicant also claims interest at the prescribed rate from date of institution of proceedings to date of final payment. More
The applicant in this case seeks an order interdicting and prohibiting the first and the second respondents from proceeding into the sale in execution of the assets laid under seizure and attachment on 30 April 2009 pursuant to the enforcement of a writ of Execution against property issued by this Court on 2 August 2006. More
I notice that the defendant’s legal practitioner has misrepresented that she is unaware of the reasons why the court struck the appellant’s defence out at a reconvened pre-trial hearing of this matter; in circumstances where the order was given as a result of wilful non-compliance with the directions given by the court. More
