On the 25 of October, I handed down an ex tempore ruling in which I dismissed the applicants’ claim. At that point, the applicants were represented by James Majatame Attorneys At Law. It appears that the applicants have now secured representation from Mugiya and Muvhami Law Chambers who have written requesting an upliftment of the judgment. This is a curious fact as Mugiya and Muvhami Law Chambers were representing the first respondent at the time the matter was heard before me, as evident from the record. It is improper for Mugiya and Muvhami Law Chambers to switch camp at this... More
The two applicants are sister companies. In fact the second applicant is a management vehicle of the first applicant and they are represented by Michael Fowler who doubles up as a director of both of them. He has deposed to the founding affidavit in support of this summary judgment application on behalf of both of them. They seek an order for the eviction of the first respondent, a mining cooperative currently in occupation of and mining gold claims registration numbers 12731G, 12734G and 21715 BN situated in Chegutu, from those mining claims. The application is opposed by the first respondent... More
The application is opposed by the second respondent. The first respondent is the presiding magistrate whose decision is the subject matter of the review application pending before this court under case no. HC 2653/18. The first respondent is not really a player in this application because she made her decision, the subject of review and became functus officio. To put the matter beyond doubt, the applicant appeared before the first applicant at Harare Magistrates court on 17 February, 2018 charged with the offence of Criminal Abuse of Duty as a Public Officer as defined in section 174 (1) (a) of... More
This is an urgent chamber application for a spoliation order which was initially lodged against the first to third respondents before the fourth respondent was joined to the proceedings in terms of Rule 32(12) (b) of the High Court Rules, 2021.
The third respondent abandoned the points in limine raised in its papers of opposition. I will therefore go into the merits of the matter. The applicant’s case is that he bought two pieces of land from Hayes Zimbabwe Private Limited and Rawson Properties on 18 June 2020, being stands 18017 and 18018 Tynwald Township of lot 12 Tynwald. After... More
This is a court application for leave to execute an order of this court in case number HC 5622/19 pending appeal.
The application is opposed by the respondents.
On 17 January 2020 the applicant obtained an order against the respondents in case number HC 5622/19 in the following terms;
“that;
1. The respondents return and deliver a new Terex J1160 Mobile Crushing Plant to the applicant within 7 (seven) days from the date of granting of this order.
2. Failure of which the Sheriff is hereby authorized to take all reasonable steps to ensure that the respondents complies with this... More
