CHIRAWU-MUGOMBA J: Over the years, this court has been inundated with applications for substituted service in matrimonial matters. In most instances, the plaintiff will claim that the whereabouts of the defendant are unknown and they thus seek an order to resort to other means of service of process. The most popular means is publication in a newspaper circulating within Zimbabwe. More
“The first respondent be and is hereby interdicted from alienating or otherwise disposing of or dealing with the rights of the third and fourth respondents arising out of the memoranda of understanding concluded between the applicants and the first respondent at Harare on 25 July 2008 and 13 October 2006, pending the outcome of an arbitration to be instituted by the applicants in Paris in accordance with the afore mentioned memoranda of understanding More
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
