The appellant issued summons in the court below claiming US750.00 for the value of his generator leased to the respondents including interest at the official rate and costs on the higher scale. The respondents had failed to pay for the generator as agreed which he now wanted returned in terms of its value. The appellant had applied for summary judgment a month after the respondents had filed a special plea which had however not been pursued prior to this application for summary judgment. The special plea was in essence that the same matter was lis pendens under 1311/20 in which... More
First Applicant and the respondents are engaged in a bitter battle for the control of second respondent. As often happens in such issues, the disputes unfortunately spill into our courts. Parties have been engaged in litigation of all sorts since 2005. More
The applicant approached this court seeking an order in the following terms:
“It is ordered and declared that:
1) The Constitution of the Apostolic Faith Mission in Zimbabwe (“The Constitution”) is the Supreme Law governing all the legal matters of the church.
2) The formation of branch – assemblies within the AFMZ is regulated by Chapter 3 of the Regulations to the said Constitution.
3) Any branch assembly formed outside of Chapter 3 of the Regulations to the said Constitution is illegal and ultra-vires the Constitution of the AFMZ.
4) That the respondent only bears the costs of suit in... More
The factual background to this matter is that a default judgment was granted against the applicants in 2005. That order was to the effect that the now appellants be evicted from Pumula Farm in Urungwe, Karoi. A warrant of ejectment and execution against property was then obtained in 2020 prompting the appellants to file the application for condonation of late filing of an application for rescission of judgment as they were way out of time in seeking a setting aside of the default order. The court a quo found that the delay was inordinate, there was no reasonable explanation for... More
The plaintiff instituted proceedings against the defendant wherein he claimed the following:- a decree of divorce, and as ancillary relief thereto, custody of the two minor children of the union and an equitable distribution of the assets which constituted the matrimonial estate. When the matter was brought before a judge in chambers for a pre-trial conference the parties made some accommodation on some of the contentious issues to the dispute. The question of the custody of the minor children and their upkeep was resolved between the parties. They also shared out the matrimonial estate which consisted of both movable and... More
