This is a claim for rei vindicatio. The brief facts are that the applicant is the owner of Inodzi Estate in Penhalonga. It is engaged in timber plantation. Sometime in 2010 the first respondent was allocated a plot at Inodzi Estate. Following engagements between the applicant and the second respondent such certificate was withdrawn on 17 October 2011. The first respondent was in exchange issued with an offer
letter for Plot 3 Savillen Mutasa District measuring 18 hectares. The first respondent did not move off Inodzi but continued in occupation. The applicant has approached this court for the eviction of... More
The first and second applicants approached this court seeking the relief for the rescission of default judgment. More particularly, the draft order filed by the first and second applicants is as follows:
“1. Default judgment granted by this Honourable Court on 23rd day of June 2021 be and is hereby rescinded.
2. The Applicant be and is hereby given leave to defend the main action HC 1255-21.
3. Costs be in the main cause.” More
The applicant is a businessman with interests in businesses in
Zimbabwe and South Africa. The respondent is the Minister of Justice, Legal and
Parliamentary Affairs. He is the Minister responsible for the Administration of the
Prevention of Corruption Act [Chapter 9:16] (hereinafter called the Act). On 9 July
2004 he specified the applicant in terms of section 6(1) of the Act. The specification
was in terms of section6(1) gazetted in the Government Gazette of the 9th July 2004.
The applicant was therefore declared a specified person from that date More
The applicants are residents of properties in Hillside and Eastlea suburbs, Harare. The two suburbs neighbour Coronation Park, an open area off Robert Mugabe Avenue and opposite Rhodesville Police Station. The first respondent has commenced the construction of a bus terminus and a people’s market on the open area called Rhodesville Holding Bay (the Holding Bay/project). More
On 2 October 2018 we set aside the proceedings in the lower court that were being appealed against and remitted the case to the court a quo for a proper hearing of the matter. Our reasons for so ordering were as follows:
The appellant sued the 2nd respondent in the Community Court of Chief Marozva over the ownership or right of occupation of a piece of land under Tarwirei Ward 11. The dispute had been on-going for some years. More
