This application was placed before the court as an urgent court application in terms of the proviso to r 59(6), as read with r 65(8) of the High Court Rules, 2021. The timelines within which further pleadings were to be filed were truncated in terms of the proviso to r 59(6). More
On 14 May 1983 the applicant and the respondent were happily joined in holy matrimony as husband and wife. On 21 April 2004 that union was brought to an end by virtue of a decree of divorce granted by this court at the applicant’s instance. In granting the decree of divorce the court also dealt with other ancillary issues as between the parties such as the custody of the minor children of the marriage, access by the non custodian parent, maintenance requirements for the children and the distribution of both the movable and immovable property that the couple had acquired... More
On 6 March, 2008 Khaled Kassim Joosab (“Joosab”), the first respondent herein, leased his property, Number 4, 19 Robert Mugabe Street, Rusape (“the property”) to the applicant, one Gladys Svosve (“Gladys”). The lease which Joosab and Gladys signed was to endure for one full year. Gladys was to pay a monthly rental of ZWL$2 200 000 000 for her occupation and use of the property. More
This short judgment is intended to contextualize my order so that its rationality is appreciated when the main matter Case No. HC 112/19 is finally determined by the court should the applicant persist in it. More
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
