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
On 29 April 2010 and in case number HC 2816/10 the applicant instituted action proceedings against the respondents claiming the sum of GBP 39 848-00, interest on that amount at the prescribed rate from date of summons to date of payment in full and costs of suit on a legal practitioner client scale and collection commission. The defendant filed a Special Plea and Exception. There was no response to theSpecial Plea and Exception. The defendants proceeded to set the matter down on the unopposed roll. On 11 August 2010 the Special Plea and Exception were upheld and the plaintiff’s claim... More
