Electronic Court judgements

Browse Court Judgements by court

The applicants are importunate. They want back their money – $142 000 – all in the currency of the United States dollars [USD]. If the first respondent, their banker, will not pay, then the second and third respondents, collectively the monetary authorities, should. The applicants allege these monetary authorities are partly the reason the first respondent will not pay. The applicants want a whole range of some financial legislation, and certain monetary policies or directives, set aside on the grounds of constitutional invalidity. They first came to this court in 2019. The subject matter was the same. This court ruled... More

The plaintiff seeks an order for eviction of the first defendant from stand 7874 Belvedere West, Harare. More

This is an urgent chamber application, filed on a certificate of urgency, for leave to execute an order of this Honourable Court pending the determination of an appeal noted by the first and second respondents against the judgment by the HONOURABLEJUSTICEKWENDA handed down on 16 September 2021 under judgment number HH505-21. The background facts are that the applicant filed an urgent chamber application for an interdict under case number HC 3589/21. The application was struck off the roll because the relief sought by the applicant in the interim and final orders was found to be the same. More

This is a chamber application for a provisional order, wherein the applicant seeks a temporary interdict restraining the 1st to 6th respondents from infringing upon its property rights. Reference to the respondents in this judgment will exclude the 7th and 8th respondent because the 8th respondent is an officer of this court mandated to execute its judgments who has no interest in the outcome of the matter and there is no order sought against the 8th respondent. More

The applicant filed the above application on 9 October 2002, seeking an order restraining the respondents from interfering in the applicant’s relationship with its staff and specifically barring the respondents from representing the interest of its staff in matters affecting conditions of service of its staff. The application was opposed. More