This is an application for an order of rei-vindicatio and alternative relief. I granted the relief sought in the main. The applicants draft order was worded as follows:
1. The respondents return and deliver the applicant’s Terex J1160 Crushing Plant to the applicant within 7 (seven) days from the date of granting of this order.
2. In the event that the plant is not delivered as aforesaid, the Sheriff is authorised to take all reasonable steps to ensure that the respondents comply with this order.
3. The respondents are jointly and severally liable for applicant’s costs on the ordinary scale. More
This is an application in which an order is sought for the respondent to furnish the further and better particulars requested by the applicants on 25 November 2011. The second applicant is the deponent to the founding affidavit wherein he avers that he is authorised by the first applicant to make the affidavit and bring the application. He also avers that he also brings the application on behalf of himself as well as the third and fourth applicants. More
The Plaintiff and the Defendant married each other customarily before they upgraded their union into a civil marriage. The parties married each other on 26 February 2019 in terms of the then Marriage Act [Chapter 5:11], now the Marriages Act [Chapter 5:15]. The marriage was blessed with one child, Lee Mufaro Matiza (born on 24 April 2024). On 6 March 2024, the Plaintiff sued out summons for divorce and ancillary relief. He stated in his declaration that the relationship between the parties has irretrievably broken down to such an extent that there are no prospects of restoration of a normal... More
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
