This application is brought in terms of Rule 39 (4) (a) of the High Court Rules, 2021, and seeks the lifting of bar operating against it. The salient facts are that, on 3 October 1996, the applicant and the 2nd respondent entered into a notarial and prospecting contract and option agreement. In terms of the agreement, the applicant transferred its mining claims to the 2nd respondent. More
The present application seeks to review the first respondent’s decision in declaring the area described in the schedule to Statutory Instrument 145/2018 as a Cantonment Area, acting in terms of section 89 of the Defence Act [Chapter 11:02] (“the Defence Act”). It is applicant’s case that it is the holder of two hundred and sixty mining claims in the Darwendale area of Mashonaland West mining district. Relevant to this matter are claims known as Wendale 42 and Wendale 43 Block which are registered under certificates number 18006BM and 18007BM respectively. The said mines are situated partly on Darwendale South Eclipse... More
The applicants approached this court seeking an order couched in the following manner:
“1. The 1st Respondent be and is hereby compelled to allow the Applicant access to inspect and make copies of all the documents contained within the files of the mining claims: More
Defendant (the parties) entered into a registered civil marriage on 30 April 1994 and were blessed with two children who have since reached majority status. On 17 February 2020, Plaintiff issued summons against the Defendant claiming a decree of divorce and ancillary relief. In his declaration, Plaintiff stated that the parties have not lived together as husband and wife for a period exceeding twelve (12) months, have now lost love and affection for each other and reconciliation is no longer possible. Plaintiff also stated that, during the subsistence of their marriage, the Defendant and himself acquired one immovable property namely... More
The first respondent instituted proceedings in the magistrates court against the applicants for their eviction. The eviction order was granted after the court had heard the parties. The applicants noted an appeal challenging the magistrate’s decision on the merits as well as on the basis that the first respondent had no locus standi in the matter. The first respondent applied for leave to execute the eviction order pending appeal. The application was granted. More
