December 2011 the applicant filed an application in this court under case No HC 12336/11 seeking a prohibitory interdict against the respondents. The remedy sought was to prevent the respondents from moving or accepting any motion from any member of the House of Assembly to dismiss the applicant without the matter of his dismissal first being brought before the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders (CSRO) or its sub committee or other independent and impartial disciplinary authority. More
This is an application for summary judgment. The applicant, which is the plaintiff in the main matter, instituted an action against the respondent for the following relief:
(a) An order for the eviction of the defendant and all those claiming occupation through it from the premises known as Ground Floor, Shop No. 5, Thaine Building, Harare. More
This matter came before me via the chamber book on the basis of perceived urgency. The applicants are desirous of a provisional order whose interim relief is couched in this vein:
“Pending determination of this matter, the first and second applicant is (sic) granted the following relief:-
1.
That the motor vehicles impounded by the respondent from the second applicant being Isuzu KB 250 double cab, Registration ABG 3091 and Isuzu KB 250 ABI 6481 double cab, be and are hereby ordered to be released to second applicant forthwith or upon service of this Order. More
This is an urgent chamber application for an interdict. The applicant is a tenant at stand number 5120, Stockton Road, Belmont, Bulawayo in terms of a lease agreement held with the first respondent. The lease is expiring on the 31st December 2021.
A dispute has emerged between the applicant and 1st respondent regarding the ownership of a 20 meter by 18 meter steel structure which was erected by the applicant in February 2016. When the applicant notified the first respondent’s representatives of its intention to remove the steel structure at the end of the lease, this was opposed. The first... More
HUNGWE J: The appellants were convicted of bribery after a protracted trial. They were each sentenced to 24 months imprisonment of which 12 months imprisonment was suspended for a period of five years on the usual conditions of good behaviour.
They both appealed against conviction and sentence. They were legally represented at their trial. On appeal only second appellant was legally represented. Their trial lawyers filed the grounds of appeal which addressed various issues they intended to argue on appeal.
First appellant’s grounds of appeal failed to comply with r 22 (1) of the Criminal Appeals Rules applicable to the... More
