Siansimba is a campsite in the Zambezi Valley. It is owned by the second respondent. The second respondent is a statutory body set up in terms of the Parks and Wildlife Act (Chapter 20:14). It has multiple functions. They include, inter alia, the power or obligation to control, manage and maintain national parks, botanical gardens, sanctuaries, and recreational parks for the purposes specified in that Act. In this application, the applicant seeks a number of interim interdicts against the respondents. Against the first respondent, a private company duly incorporated in accordance with the laws of this country, the applicant seeks... More
This judgment relates to two related applications which were argued together. The parties are the same in both matters. Case Number HC 12470/11 is an application for condonation of the failure to file an application for the setting aside of the default judgment granted in Case Number HC 9545/11 within the period provided for in r 63(1) of the Rules of this Court. Case Number HC 12471/11 is the application for the rescission of the default judgment referred to above. More
This judgment is in respect of two matters which were argued before me. Case No. HC 12469/11 is an application for the rescission of a judgment given in default of the applicant in Case No. HC 3729/09.Case No. HC12468/11is an application for condonation of the applicant’s failure to file the application for rescission of judgment viz. HC 12469/11 within the time prescribed by the Rules of this Court. After hearing argument from both counsel I dismissed the application for condonation. The effect of that was that there was no application for rescission of judgment properly before the Court, hence Case... More
On the night of 25 October 2006 the plaintiff, a farmer in Chegutu, was driving a Landrover Defender motor vehicle registration number AAU 0482 which is a 1996 model along Prince Edward approaching Lezard Avenue in Milton Park Harare at about 23:00 hours, when he beheld a Leyland Truck registration number AAA 4555 belonging to the second defendant from a distance of about 10 metres. More
The issue for determination in casu is whether or not service of a petition on respondent’s legal practitioner is proper service in terms of the Electoral Act [Cap 2:13] (“the Act”). I want to quickly state that an affirmative answer to the issue raised depends on whether or not there is clear evidence that the respondent chose that course. More
