Applicant seeks the following order from this court;
“(1) That first respondent shall approve the layout plan for applicant within ten (10) days of service of this order, failure of which the Sheriff for Zimbabwe shall sign the layout plan in approval for subdivision E of Arlington Estate, Harare
(2) 1ST respondent shall pay the costs of this application if he opposes same.
(3) 2nd respondent, the administrative authority for the municipal area of Harare, shall be bound by the provisions of this court order. More
The court action between the parties was set down for hearing on the continuous court roll for Wednesday the 31st January and Thursday the 1st of February 2011.
It is pertinent to note that a Joint Pre-Trial Conference minute had been filed of record and signed by both parties’ legal representatives.
The matter was referred to trial by HUNGWE J on 28 June, 2017.
As for this court was concerned all the issues for trial had been settled by and between the parties. More
This matter was instituted as an urgent chamber application for an interdict preventing the respondents from removing “any bags of maize from (the) applicant’s premises” pending determination of the matter. The final order sought is that the applicant be given leave to process the maize in its custody into mealie-meal. After hearing argument from the legal practitioners representing the applicant and the respondents I dismissed the application with costs and indicated that my reasons would follow. The applicant has asked for the written reasons. These are they. More
This is an urgent chamber application. The matter was set down for hearing on21 March 2012 and an ex-tempo judgment given the same date. The respondents have requested for reasons for my decision. More
The applicant approached the court on the 8th of January 2021 under the auspices of s 85 (1) (a) of the Constitution which permits any person acting in their own interest to approach a court alleging that fundamental rights have been violated. This approach was on an urgent basis. The application was against the Minister of Health as the first respondent and as the alleged primary violator of the rights complained about. The other respondents, namely, the Minister of Home Affairs, the Minister of Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs, and, the Attorney General, were also cited but only in their... More
