Welcome to Midlands State University Library

Court Judgements



Browse Court Judgements by court
After hearing submissions in argument from both legal practitioners I dismissed this application with costs on the ordinary scale and indicated that my written reasons would follow in due course. These are they. On 27 September 2005 the applicant and the 1st respondent represented by the second respondent concluded on agreement of sale of an immovable property known as Stand 195 Monavale Township measuring 36953 square metres for a purchase price of seven billion dollars ($7 000 000 000 .00) More

The plaintiff issued summons on 24 May 2011 against the three defendants seeking defamation damages in the sum of US$50 000-00, interest and costs. The first defendant, a senior reporter, wrote the article in issue in the H-Metro tabloid of 3 March 2011. The second defendant was his editor while the third printed and published the article. More

Afterdisposed of this application which was set down through the urgent chamber bookon 12 June, 2018 the applicant’s legal practitioners addressed a letter to the High Court Registrar on 14 June, 2018. The letter reads, in part, as follows: “The application was dismissed and the reasons were given ex tempore in chambers. We kindly request that we be furnished with the reasons on an urgent basis….. We have instructions to appeal his Lordship’s decision….” More

This is an application to declare null and void an appeal noted to this court by the respondent under Civ App 89/07. In the alternative, the appellant seeks an order that the appeal be declared to have lapsed. More

The applicant has approached this court seeking the following relief: "1. The agreement concluded between the deceased, the late Joseph Muchapondwa and the first respondent on 13 February 2009 be hereby confirmed. 2. Terms of the final order be effected to the point that the execution of the judgment granted in the Magistrate Court Case No 11317/05 be and is hereby set aside because the order was complied with when deceased bought off the first respondent. 3. That there be no order as to costs(unless either party opposes this application in which case the opposing party shall pay the costs... More