This matter was set to be heard by my brother BHUNU J on 24 January, 2011 at 09.00 hours but could not because the first respondent had filed its opposing papers shortly before 09.00 hours. BHUNU J then postponed it sine die to enable the applicants to file a replying affidavit by 31 January, 2011 and thereafter, parties were to file supplementary heads of argument by 3 February, 2011. Subsequently, the matter was set down for hearing on 4 February, 2011 but was then postponed to 14 February, 2011 when it found its way to me for the simple reason... More
The background to this matter is that Fangudu farm was acquired from respondents by the fourth respondent. A portion of the farm was allocated to applicant. Whilst a dispute regarding the acquisition was still going on applicant moved onto the farm. Applicants sought a spoliation order by way of urgent chamber application and this was granted in case number HC 7170/06. This provisional order was confirmed by PATEL J in judgment number HH 128/09 which was handed down on 21 December 2009. The order by PATEL J was declaratory in nature. More
The application for condonation for late noting of appeal is dismissed. The reasons are as follows:
As correctly stated by the respondent’s deponent, the applicant has not advanced any grounds of appeal that merit the granting of the application. The purported grounds are just endless submissions that are not clear and concise. It is difficult to ascertain what exactly the applicant is attacking in the judgment of the court a quo. With this, it is difficult to see how and where exactly the court a quo erred. More
The 4 applicants are secondary school teachers who, until recently, have been employed as such at Prince Edward School in Harare. The first applicant joined that school on 1 January 2008 as a mathematics teacher, the second applicant joined on 1 January 2005 as a history teacher, the third applicant joined on 1 August 2008 as a music teacher and the fourth applicant joined on 8 September 2008 as a music teacher before being moved to the English Department. More
This application concerns the rescission of a court order dated 19 October 2022 under HC 6383/22 placing the applicant under corporate rescue. The aforesaid order has a clause providing for the appointment of the corporate rescue practitioner, namely, Obert Madondo. In addition, the order subjects the applicant to the supervision, management and control of the corporate rescue practitioner as provided for by the Insolvency Act [Chapter 6:07]. More
