On 10 August 2012 after hearing counsel for the applicant and the first respondent I granted the following provisional order;
“INTERIM RELIEF GRANTED
Pending return date the applicant is granted the following:-
1. 1st respondent or his assignee be and is hereby ordered to stop forthwith quarrying activities on the applicant’s farm namely Coburn 27A till finalisation of the matter on the return date.
2. 2nd respondent or his assignee be and is hereby barred from authorising the 1st respondent from carrying out quarrying activities on the applicant’s farm namely Coburn 27A till finalisation of this matter on the return... More
The plaintiff is currently the acting headmaster of Tsatsi High School in Domboshava but his homestead, where his wife still resides, (their children, the oldest of which is 25 with the youngest aged 10 years, having moved out or are attending school), is at Majuru line in Goromonzi. At the material time, he was the headmaster of Mkombami High School in Goromonzi, a post he was forced to vacate on 19 September 2011 following disturbances and accusations levelled against him. More
It seems to me quite unacceptable if not completely dishonorable for a litigant who has the benefit of legal counsel to repeatedly approach the same court on the same facts and in respect of the same cause of action, seeking almost the same relief which has previously not found favour with the court, a court which has pronounced itself very clearly on the matter. Not once, not twice but thrice, this court has expressed the view that the plaintiff’s claim that he purchased stand 1092 Umtali Township, also known as No 26 Jameson Road Mutare (the property) and that it... More
The first respondent obtained an order under case number HC 10809/13 to eject the second respondent and all those claiming occupation of stand 1092 Umtali Township, through him. The first respondent avers that the applicant occupies the stand through the second respondent and is therefore liable to be ejected in terms of the eviction order obtained by the first respondent against the second respondent. More
: The plaintiff issued summons out of this court seeking a decree of divorce and other ancillary relief. The facts of this matter are not in dispute and may be summarized as follows. The plaintiff and defendant are husband and wife. They married in terms of the Marriages Act [Cap 5:11] on 24 August 1996. They have one minor child a little boy aged 11. In 2008 the parties separated due to marital differences. They have not lived together as husband and wife since that time. They are both certain that the marriage has broken down to such an extent... More
