On 29 June 2021, I gave judgment ex tempore. I have been requested to give reasons and these are they.
The matter was placed before me as a chamber application for condonation and upliftment of bar in terms of Order 32 r 241 as read with Order 12 r 84(1)(a) of the Rules of the High Court, 1971. More
Following a disciplinary hearing, this Tribunal on 15th April 2021 ordered that the applicant’s name be deleted from the register of legal practitioners, notaries public and conveyancers. The applicant now seeks the suspension of that order pending the determination of the appeal he noted with the Supreme Court. Such relief is provided for in s 29(3) of the Legal Practitioners Act [Chapter 27:07]. More
The plaintiff herein claims the eviction of the defendants from the stand in dispute, together with holding over damages, and costs of suit on a higher scale. The primary issue for determination is whether or not the transfer of the property to the plaintiff was properly effected. The plaintiff’s entitlement to an eviction order and holding over damages hinges upon the answer to that question. More
This is an application for a compelling order. Its genesis is that:
The first Respondent is a body corporate involved in the business of land development and related transactions. Sometime in 2013 the Applicant purchased a piece of land from the second Respondent and reduced that purchase into writing on 24 July 2013. The piece of land in question is situate in an area which was/is being developed by the first Responded. It is common cause that pursuant to the sale agreement between the Applicant and the second Respondent the applicant approached the first Respondent for the purposes of the... More
The applicant and the first respondent are landlord and tenant respectively. Their relationship commenced when they concluded a written agreement in respect of certain commercial premises situate at Throgmorton House, Samora Machel Avenue, in Harare. The agreement was for a period of one year, commencing on 1 July 2006 and terminating on 30 June 2007. The second and third defendants as directors of the first respondent bound themselves as co –principal debtors under the lease agreement. More
