Welcome to Midlands State University Library

Court Judgements



Browse Court Judgements by court
This is an urgent chamber application for an interim interdict, in particular for what is commonly referred to as an anti-dissipation interdict. This form of an interdict is a summary order meant to preserve assets by restraining their disposal pending the determination of a dispute involving the parties. The dispute pending is an action matter Case No. HC1349/24 initiated by the applicant against the first respondent. More

In March, 2008 the plaintiff and the defendant concluded an agreement in terms of which the plaintiff paid Z$2 750 000 000 000 (two trillion seven hundred and fifty billion dollars) for 2 200 x 195R14 brand new tyres which the defendant allegedly agreed to deliver by 2 March, 2008. To date, the defendant has only delivered 200 tyres leaving a balance of 2000 tyres. The current market value of the tyres is pegged at US$100 per tyre. In the event the plaintiff is claiming delivery of the outstanding tyres, alternatively US$200 000-00 representing the current market value of the... More

The plaintiff’s claim against the defendant is for specific performance in the form of delivery of 2000 x 195 R 14 inch tyres within fourteen days of date of judgment, alternatively payment of US$2000 000-00 being the estimated value of the tyres at US$100-00 each. Interest on the above sum and costs of suit are also claimed. More

This is an Urgent Chamber Application in terms of Rule 57 (2) (a) of the High Court Rules 2021, for an interdict against the respondents pending the finalization of the matter under HC 2528/22. More

The applicant Athos Proestos and the first respondent Christalleni Proestos are brother and sister. Their dispute lies in the validity of their mother’s will which accorded Christalleni Proestos property known as known as stand 12895 Salisbury Township also known as number 94 Churchill Avenue, Gun Hill, Harare, Zimbabwe. The will also made her an executor of the estate. Applicant’s complaint is that their parents’ estates were fraudulently registered by Christalleni on the strength of that fraudulent will, having torn up their mother’s will of 2000 which granted the property equally to both of them. In her capacity as executor, Christalleni... More