[ 1] This dispute traces its origin to the Land Reform Programme. For a recap on the purpose and background to that programme, see BHUNU JA`s concise treatise in TBIC Investments (Private) Limited & Anor v Kennedy Mangenje & 5 Ors SC 13-18.
[ 2] At stake herein is a one-hundred-hectare tract of state land located in the environs east of Harare. The applicant (“N-Frays”) is a land developer. Its objects in such capacity include securing vacant (farm) land and taking all necessary steps to establish thereon a residential township.
[ 3] First respondent (“the Minister”) is an administrative authority... More
This is an application for a declaratory order that payment made at the respondent’s premises to an apparent employee of the respondent be declared valid payment for purposes of discharging the applicant’s indebtedness to respondent. More
The applicant, a firm of legal practitioners seeks the following order:
"Interim Relief Sought
2. Pending the discharge or confirmation of the provisional order:
2.1 The respondent shall cause Robin House, situated in George Silundika Avenue, Harare, to be reopened forthwith.
2.2 The respondent shall ensure that the applicant and its lawful visitors have unrestricted access to Robin House." More
The plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as “Tshuma”) issued summons out of this court in February 1994 seeking the eviction of the first and second defendants (hereinafter referred as “the Musemburis”) from a property known as number 18 Ridgeway South, Highlands, Harare (hereafter referred as “the property”) and payment of damages. The Musemburis counterclaimed for the cancellation of the transfer of the property to the applicant and the subsequent transfer of the same property to them. The two matters were consolidated and are the subject matter of this trial. More
This is an application for the setting aside on review of the decision of the first respondent in terms of which the third respondent was held to have been married to the deceased LovemoreChipunzaSekeramayi (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”), and for a declaration that the decision of the second respondent in terms of which the third respondent was declared to be a spouse of the deceased was null and void. The application is opposed by the third respondent. More
