The applicants are husband and wife and the respondents are also husband and wife. On the 27th February 2012, the parties entered into an agreement of sale in terms of which the Applicants sold to Respondents an immovable property ,namely, 2200 square meters of Lot 48, Marlborough Township of Marlborough held under Deed of Transfer number 1187/2003. Due to some challenges with the sale transaction on the 17th June 2016 the respondents sued the applicants in HC 6185/16 seeking an order confirming the cancellation of the agreement of sale and ordering the Applicants to reimburse the purchase price of US$... More
The applicant was dismissed from employment in terms of the Labour Relations Act [Chapter 28:01] as amended. He is alleged to have committed an act inconsistent with the fulfillment of the express or implied conditions of his contract of employment and fraud. More
The applicant filed an urgent chamber application and sought the following relief:
“TERMS OF FINAL ORDER SOUGHT
1. That the reallocation of stand number 32, Muguta Shopping Centre, Epworth to the second, third, fourth respondent or any other person be and is hereby reversed.
2. That the first respondent is ordered to expedite the process of approving the applicant’s building plans.
3. Alternatively that first respondent allocates the applicant another commercial stand of the same size.
4. That first applicant to pay costs of this application on the legal practitioner –client scale. More
Following an urgent chamber application for stay of execution, the applicant and first respondent had entered into a deed of settlement on 24 May 2016 in which the Applicant (as then first respondent), agreed to stay execution on account that the 1st Respondent (as then Applicant), paid an amount of $40 345.45 owing to it as rentals in monthly instalments of $6000.00 starting 30 May 2016 and thereafter on the 24th day of every new month for a further period of 7 months until the debt was extinguished. More
In this matter the marriage between the plaintiff and first defendant was dissolved by a decree of this court on 26 November 2019 in an initial action where the parties were only the plaintiff, first and second defendant. The second defendant had been cited because of allegations of adultery between her and the first defendant. It appears that the issue of adultery damages was resolved out of court through a deed of settlement of 26 November 2019 with second defendant paying ZWL $20 000.00 and the second defendant ceased to be directly involved in the proceedings hence her nonappearance in... More
