On 26 May 2022, a default judgment was handed down in case number HC 6499/21. First respondent was the plaintiff in that matter. The default order declared her to be the surviving spouse of the deceased Alexander Makwena entitling her to inherit in the deceased’s estate and ordered second and third respondents to include her in the final administration account and distribution plan. The present application was filed on 6 October 2022. More
This is an urgent chamber application for an order interdicting the respondent from instituting a suitability inquiry in respect of the applicant pending determination of the court application for review filed by the applicant under case No. HC 6543/18. The application is opposed by the respondent.
The convoluted facts of this matter are that in 2014 the applicant instituted an application for review under Case No. HC 10614/14. The respondent, who was also the respondent in that matter failed to file his notice of opposition timeously. Respondent then filed an application for condonation and extension of the time within which... More
This is an appeal against the judgment by the Gweru magistrates court delivered on 28 June 2011. The magistrates court dismissed appellant’s application for variation (downward) of a maintenance order passed by the Harare magistrates court on 31 June 2010 in which appellant was ordered to pay $US240,00 per month as maintenance for the two minor children in addition to payment of school fees, purchase of school uniforms and casual wear. More
The applicants approached this court on a certificate of urgency, seeking spoliatory relief on an interim basis and declaratory and interdictory relief in the final against the respondents.
At the hearing the respondents raised various points in limineviz:
(i) Whether the applicants had locus standi to seek protection of the court;
(ii) Whether the deponents to the founding affidavits had authority;
(iii) Whether spoilatory relief was available to the applicants when they allege more than possession i.e. go into the merits of the possession;
(iv) Whether the matter is urgent;
(v) That there are serious disputes of fact; and
(vi)... More
The applicants filed two applications, one for condonation of late filing of an application for rescission of judgment and the other for rescission of judgment. The court, for expediency and in exercising its discretion conferred to it, in terms of r 4C of the High Court Rules, 1971, directed that the applications be argued one after the other and indicated that the judgements in the matters would be dealt with in one judgement. For ease of reference, the court will refer to the first application as “the application for condonation’’ and the second as “the application for rescission”. More
