HC 9129/19 and HC 6/20 were filed as separate cases. They deal with substantially the same dominant parties and the issue of an immovable property. It was because of the stated matter that the two cases were consolidated with a view to having them heard together. The consolidation was at the instance of the applicant with the consent of the respondents. More
The parties squabble over copyright. The plaintiff pursued only the claims against the first defendant, the Harare Institute of Technology, [HIT], a tertiary institution established in terms of Zimbabwean law and the second defendant, a chemical engineering lecturer at HIT, (the defendants). The plaintiff a graduate and former student of HIT obtained a chemical and process systems engineering degree in 2015 form HIT. In fulfilment of the degree, she submitted a project titled, “Design of a Plant Producing 24TPD Fuel Briquettes from Cornstover”, and [the project]. The second and third defendant also a lecturer, supervised her project. More
The appellant was convicted, on his own guilty plea of contravening s 89 (1) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23]. He was sentenced to 24 months imprisonment of which 3 years were suspended on condition of future good behaviour. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence he appealed against both. More
The applicants seek an order compelling the first respondent to transfer to them within three months of the order, ownership of a certain piece of land situate in Harare called Stand 3225 Bluffhill Township. The claim is based on an alleged agreement of sale between the applicants and the first respondent dated 23 June 2016. The applicants allege the first respondent has evinced an intention to cancel that agreement, or to breach it. More
In case No. HC 3719/20 the first respondent obtained a default judgment per CHAREWA J against the applicant on 7 October 2020 in a claim for the ejectment of the first respondent and all those claiming through her from premises called G3 Mimosa Flats, South Road, Norton. The default judgment was applied for and granted on the basis that the applicant having been personally served with summons on 3 August, 2020 failed to enter appearance to defend. In consequence of such failure to enter appearance to defend, the applicant was barred from filing the appearance to defend or any other... More
