The applicant filed an application on urgency against the four respondents under the heading “Urgent Chamber Application for stay of execution pending determination of applicant’s compensation for improvements on the property forming the subject matter of the dispute between the parties and her Supreme Court application for condonation of late filing of appeal and extension of time within which to appeal.”
All the parties were legally represented save the Sheriff who was sued in his official capacity and ordinarily will abide by the decision of the court as a neutral party.
The application was heavily contested on the issue of... More
At the hearing of this opposed matter a point in limine was raised, namely that the matter had, by order of this court under case number HC 1920/08, been dismissed for want of prosecution. More
The plaintiff is the first defendant’s wife. The second defendant is her husband’s young brother. The third defendant is a company with which the plaintiff and the first defendant used to do business. More
The plaintiff issued summons out of this court on 17 August 2011 seeking an order compelling the first defendant to effect change of ownership of Stand No. 9781 Kuwadzana Phase 3 Harare from his name to the plaintiff’s name and that of Dickson Kudzanga within seven days of the date of judgment, that should first defendant fail or refuse to effect change of ownership as requested the Sheriff of Zimbabwe be authorised to sign any papers or documents as provided for the second defendant to effect change of ownership of the said stand from the defendant’s name to that of... More
On 12 September 2006, the applicant obtained an order from this court compelling Africa International Removals to pay her the sum of $4 441 841, 67 together with interest thereon, to deliver to her vehicle and a mobile phone together with a line for use in that phone. A warrant of execution was taken out against the defendant and some vehicles belonging to the defendant were attached in execution. A few days after the attachment, the defendant paid the amount levied on the warrant in full. The motor vehicle and the mobile phone handset were not delivered, prompting the applicant... More
