The application before the court is one for a declaratur initiated under s85 (1) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe. The applicant challenges the constitutional validity of the Land Commission (Gazetted Land) (Disposal In Lieu of Compensation) Regulations, 2020 (S.I. 62 of 2020) (hereinafter referred to as the regulations). The regulations were promulgated by the first respondent on 13 March 2020 in terms of s 21 as read with s 17 of the Land Commission Act (the Act). The applicant argues that the regulations violate his right to agricultural land, his right to property, his right to administrative justice and the... More
The plaintiff herein issued summons against the two defendants out of this court on 13 April 2010. The plaintiff claim as endorsed on the face of the summons was for relief as follows:
a) Delivery to the plaintiff of the equipment described in Annexure ‘A’ to the plaintiff’s Declaration;
b) alternatively payment of the sum of US $34 959.42
c) Interest thereon at the prescribed rate from date of judgment to date of final payment; and
d) Costs of suit. More
This judgment pertains to two action matters that were consolidated as they involved the same property and virtually the same parties. The plaintiffs are husband and wife. The first plaintiff is the wife whilst the second plaintiff is the husband. The first plaintiff is the registered owner of an immovable property being Subdivision B of Subdivision D of Subdivision A of Lot 4 of Lot A of Colne Valley of Rietfontein, also known as no. 47 Addington Lane, Ballantyne Park, Harare. More
There are 2 applications before me, namely an application for condonation of the late filing of an application for rescission of judgment and the application for rescission of judgment. The parties agreed that both matters be heard at the same time.
Ideally the application for rescission of judgment should not have been filed without condonation of its late filing. Filing it at the same time as the application for condonation does not cure the defect. Now that it has been filed it still cannot be considered without its late filing being condoned. Therefore a dismissal of the application for condonation... More
Upon considering the record of proceedings, heads of argument and hearing oral submissions in this appeal we upheld the appeal and made the following order that
1. The appeal hereby partially succeeds.
2. The order of the court a quo is set aside and substituted as follows:
3. The defendants’ shall pay $7 710 to the plaintiff.
4. Each party shall bear its own costs.
These are the reasons for our disposition. More
