The applicant’s response to the query raised on 16 January 2023 erroneously dated 16 January 2022 is acknowledged. Applicant should note that a respondent who has failed to take appropriate action in response to court proceedings (in this case an ordinary chamber application) within the dies induciae given is not always automatically barred on account of such default. Such party can always comply outside the dies induciae provided no judgment has since been obtained by the party who has approached the court for relief if there is no bar operating against him. Just to illustrate the point – a defendant... More
This is an urgent chamber application in which the provisional order sought has the following terms: -
“TERMS OF FINAL ORDER SOUGHT
That you show cause to this Honourable Court why a final order should not be made in the following terms:
1. The applicant be and is hereby awarded custody of Tinotenda Nyakudanga born 6 May 2005, Nellia Nyakudanga born 4 April 2011, Nokutenda Nyakudanga born 4 August 2014 and Bothwell Nyakudanga born 4 June 2016.
2. Respondent be and is hereby awarded access to the minor children every alternating school holiday and public holidays. Respondent shall enjoy access... More
The appellant is one determined litigator. His determination appears to be assisted by the fact that he has not engaged a legal practitioner to assist him and the prudence and reticence that is usually borne out of financial constraints not to pursue small claims to the limit appear absent. Also absent is merit in the appeal that he has noted to this court against a decision of the magistrates’ court dismissing his claim. More
The plaintiff in this matter seeks an order for the eviction of the defendants from its premises on Arcturus Road, Harare, and for the payment of holding over damages in the sum of US$1575-35 per month as from 1 March 2009 to the date of ejectment. The issues for determination are as follows: (a) whether or not the plaintiff lawfully terminated the statutory tenancy and is entitled to vacant possession of the premises; (b) whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to holding over damages as claimed or at all.
The 2nd defendant is in default, having failed to note... More
This application was argued before me on 16 July which was the return day of a provisional order granted on 4 May 2009. Although the first respondent was at the initial hearing he did not appear on the return day. He had filed opposing papers as well as heads of argument even though he was not legally represented. Mr Gutu who appeared for the second respondent, the Minister and insisted on the matter being heard on the merits and seemed not to be alive to the absence of the first respondent and the prejudice that would ensue to the latter... More
