This application was placed before me on 2 February 2022. I set it down for hearing on 7 February 2022. Due to circumstances which I shall explain later in this judgment, I postponed the matter to 8 February 2022. After hearing submissions from counsel on a preliminary point raised by the first respondent’s counsel, I struck the matter off the roll of urgent matters and ordered Mr V Moyo and Mr Chivaura both of Chivaura and Associates to pay the first respondent’s costs of suit on the attorney-client scale de bonis propriis the one paying the other to be absolved.... More
On 6 June 2017 after hearing counsel and considering the documents filed of record we dismissed the appeal with costs. We gave an ex tempore judgment. Our written reasons are captioned herein. The court a quo issued the following order that:
‘1. The respondent be and is hereby barred from interfering with the day to day operations of the applicants.
2. The respondent is interdicted from stopping the applicant’s members from paying their subscriptions.
3. The respondent is interdicted from preventing the applicants from constructing and developing stand No. 2015 Siyaso, Magaba, Mbare in terms of the Memorandum of Understanding.... More
This is an urgent court application in which the applicant seeks the following relief:
“1. That the actions of the respondents (sic) or their lawful agents in taking over the property at Stand 836 and 837 Mazoe is an act of spoliation.
2. The respondent or any of their agents are hereby ordered to restore possession of Stand 836 and 837 Mazoe District to the applicants (sic) forthwith.
3. That it is hereby ordered that any other person is barred from interfering with the premises on Stand 836 and 837 Mazoe District without a lawful cause and order of the... More
The application was brought before this court based on the following grounds:
“That the ruling made by the first Respondent is grossly unreasonable and is as outrageous as it defies all logic that no reasonable magistrates’ court applying its mind to the case would have arrived at such a decision.
That the first Respondent is un-procedurally (sic) and in a grossly irregular manner seeking to facilitate the second Respondent to bolster its otherwise very weak case through the defence’s evidence. The first Respondent did not show in her ruling that she actually exercised caution in treating evidence of the complainant... More
This is an appeal against conviction and sentence. The appellant was convicted of the offence of theft by false pretences under the old law. He was sentenced to 24 months imprisonment of which 6 months imprisonment was suspended for five years on condition that during that period he does not commit an offence involving dishonesty for which he is sentenced to imprisonment without the option of a fine. The effective sentence was therefore 18 months imprisonment. The appeal is opposed by the respondent. More
