The appellant is the 1st respondent’s neighbour. They were, according to the second respondent,(Chipinge Town Council), allocated portions of the subdivided stand 754. The appellant was allocated stand 754B while the 1st respondent was allocated stand 754A. More
This is an appeal from the magistrate’s court. The lower court dismissed an application for rescission of judgment brought by the appellant. The appellant had filed that application in terms of s 34(2) of the Magistrate’s Court Act, (Chapter 7:10) (“the Act”). This is the provision that entitles any person affected by an order of the magistrate’s court authorising the messenger of court to seize and attach so much of the movable property of, or under the control of, a tenant and found on the rented premises and as may be sufficient to satisfy the amount of rent due and... More
The four applicants together with one Vusumuzi Reynold Dube who was granted bail by CHINAMORA J in case No. B 186/21 on 15 February, 2021 appeared before the magistrate at Bindura on 12 January, 2021 on allegations of having committed the offence of robbery in aggravating circumstances as defined in s 126 of the Criminal law (Codification and Reform ) Act, [Chapter 9:23]. It was alleged that on 20 December, 2020 the five accused connived to rob the complainant Daniel Chigwada of cash at his residence at Chigonda village, Chiweshe. The fourth applicant herein was the alleged mastermind who advised... More
This is an application for an interdict in the form of an order for a stay of execution of the order of this court granted in case No. 1824/18.
The background to the application is that on 9 May, 2018 PHIRI J granted a default judgment on the unopposed motion roll in favour of the first respondent against the first and second applicants as more fully set out in the terms of the order as captured in Case No. HC 1824/18. I do not propose to set out the terms verbatim as they are clear on reference to the order... More
This is a court application for a declaratur and consequential relief filed in terms of s 14 of the High Court Act [Chapter 7:06]. On 27 February 2025, this court issued an ex tempore judgment. The court upheld the point in limine that the first respondent was barred and that its opposing papers were fatally defective. The court struck out the first respondent’s purported notice of opposition and opposing affidavit and proceeded to deal with the application as unopposed. More
