The applicant is a haulage transporter. It transports:
(a) mining equipment and products;
(b) grain;
(c) cement and hardware. Its major clients comprise:
(i) manufacturers
(ii) cement producers;
(iii) non-governmental organisations – and
(iv) government departments as well as
(v) private business which includes manufacturers and traders’ products.
On 29 June 2016, the court placed the applicant under provisional judicial management. More
This is an application which the applicants have named an “Urgent chamber application for stay of execution”. The relief sought is a provisional order. The interim relief sought is an order to ‘stop’ the respondent from executing of a seizure order issued by this court on the 21 September 2022 under case number HACC 24/22 in terms of s 47 of the Money Landing and Proceeds of Crime Act [Chapter 9.24] pending the determination of an application for rescission of judgment filed under case no HACC 33/22. The draft final relief is identical to the interim relief sought, perhaps by... More
1. This is an application brought in terms of the common law for the setting aside of a property seizure order.
2. The property seizure order was granted by this court on 21 February 2022. It was made on the basis of an application by the Prosecutor-General in terms of s 47 of the Money Laundering and Proceeds of Crime Act [Chapter 9:24] (“the Money Laundering Act”). The application that gave rise to the order was an ex parte chamber application. More
This matter was placed before me as an urgent court application for variation of a custody order issued by this court in Case No. CIV “A” 153/23. On 14 January 2025, after hearing submissions from the parties’ legal practitioners, the court issued an ex tempore judgment upholding the point in limine that the respondent had dirty hands and could not be heard. Consequently, the court disregarded the respondent’s opposing papers and proceeded with the hearing of the application as an unopposed matter. I subsequently reserved judgment on the matter. What follows are the full written reasons for the court’s decision. More
The now appellant was the applicant before the court a quo. The brief background is that he met the respondent in 2008 and they contracted a customary law union in 2016 and separated in or about December 2019. Three children were born to them being:
i. Simbarashe Mangwengwende, a boy, born on 20 April 2010.
ii. Akudzwe Kateve Mangwengwende, a boy, born on 18 June 2012; and
iii. Tawana Chidiwa Mangwengwende, a girl, born on 3 July 2015.
Upon separation of the parties, the children remained in the custody of the respondent. Having been denied custody, the appellant lodged this... More
