The applicant is a Zimbabwean citizen who has been resident in United Arab Emirates for around eleven years. At the expiration of his residence in United Arab Emirates, the applicant returned to Zimbabwe in December 2019. He alleged that the respondent, on 10 February 2020, after assessment, came to conclude that he qualified for the returning resident duty free rebate. He further asserted that some of his goods including solar system, water pump, garden irrigation system and 40 ft container were denied duty free rebate. These goods were, according to the applicant, supposed to be taken to the applicant’s plot... More
MUZOFA J: After hearing parties, I dismissed the application with costs. The applicants have requested for written reasons for purposes of appeal.
The applicants are husband and wife. They purchased two plots known as Plot Number 117 and 118 of Halfway Farm Kadoma ‘the property’ from the first respondent. Two agreements of sale were signed. The first applicant signed the agreement in respect of Plot 117 and the second applicant signed the agreement in respect of Plot 118. The second respondent is a registered company that facilitated the sale transaction. Its role in the sale transaction was that of an... More
The parties were once in a love relationship. Two residential stands, 734 and 735, Hatfield Township, of Lot 74A of Block C of Hatfield Estate were jointly purchased and registered in both their names during the tenure of their affair. Somehow, along the way their relationship lost steam and they parted ways. By mutual agreement, the plaintiff relinquished his rights in property stand 735 by deregistering his title, leaving the defendant as the sole registered owner. The same did not apply to property stand number 734, where the plaintiff held on to his co-ownership and proceeded to process the subdivision... More
This is a property dispute emanating from an agreement of sale concluded between the parties in September 2003. The plaintiff’s claim, as amended, is for damages in the sum of US$63,000 (being the cost of obtaining a similar property) or repayment of the sum of US$42,000 (being the total amount paid by the plaintiff to the defendant). More
: The plaintiff issued summons against the first and second defendants seeking an order for specific performance for the completion of construction of a house by the defendants in terms of an agreement concluded between the plaintiff and the second defendant about November 2006. In that agreement, the second defendant had undertaken to construct on stand 3181 of subdivision A of 159 Prospect, a 4 bedroomed house, all bedrooms with built-in cupboards, the main bedroom with en-suite, separate lounge and dining room, second bathroom with tub and toilet, fitted kitchen with walk in pantry, single lock up garage with a... More
