The applicant Milrite (Private) Limited is a company dully incorporated in terms of the laws of Zimbabwe carrying on business as a farming concern under the style of StilfonteinEstates. It is the former owner of a certain piece of farmland called Stilfontein of Umzila situate in the district of Chipinge commonly known as Stilfontein. More
The applicant is the former owner of Stilfontein of Umzila of Chipinge. Its farm was acquired by the State, but it did not vacate the farm as provided by s 3 (2) of the-Gazetted Land (Consequential Privisions) Act [Cap 20:28], hereinafter called “theAct”. It was prosecuted, convicted and sentenced for contravening s 3 (3), of the Act by a Magistrate sitting at Chipinge Magistrate’s court. The magistrate evicted the applicant from Stilfontein in terms of s 3 (5) of the Act. It vacated the farm, in spite of its having applied for and obtained from KUDYA J, an order directing... More
The background to this matter is spelt out in the judgment of MUSAKWAJ in Chiriga Estates and 2 others v Minister of Lands and Rural Resettlement & 9 Others HH 34/10 (HC 665/10), hereinafter refereed to as “the first application”. The current application shall be referred to as “the second application”. When the second application was brought before me, the first respondent raised the issue of res judicata, as a preliminary point. The plea was upheld on 19 March, with reasons to follow. It is the reasons for upholding this preliminary point that this judgment addresses. More
This is an application for confirmation of a provisional order issued by this court on 10 November 2011. The interim relief that was granted on that date was that:
1. The respondent shall forthwith cease any improvements on the property known as stand number 927 Forbes Road, Uplands Waterfalls Harare, and shall remove from the property, all his movable goods and effects.
2. Costs shall follow the cause.
The relief that the applicants now seek is confirmation of the terms of the final order which reads as follows: More
The first – third appellants filed their joint appeal under case No. B 429/21. The fourth appellant separately filed his appeal under case No. B 494/21. The bail applications were set down for hearing on the same date. The appellants are all co-accused in the case for which bail was refused by the magistrate and is now subject of this appeal. By agreement of counsel, the applications B 429/21 and B 494/21 were consolidated for purposes of hearing and judgment. This explains why the fourth appellant has been cited as such. More
