The plaintiff married the defendant in terms of the Marriages Act [Chapter 5: 11] on 19 December 2014 at Marondera. The plaintiff is not in formal employment but claimed to be in the business of buying and selling anything saleable. The defendant on the other hand is a student at the University of Zimbabwe (UZ). Their marriage was soon on the rocks and on 16 July 2015 the plaintiff sued defendant for divorce and other ancillary relief. The parties had stayed together as husband and wife from 19 December 2014 to end of February 2015 when the defendant returned to... More
The background of the case is that on 7 October 2014 the respondent leased shop premises at Number 121 Harare Street to the first appellant for two years. The rental was renewable annually. The second appellant signed as surety. It was common cause that at the time the summons was issued, the rent was US$2550.00 per month plus operating expenses. More
The appellants are being charged with unlawful dealing in dangerous drugs as defined in s156(1)(c)of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23]. Their application for bail pending trial was refused by the Magistrates Court on the basis of the strength of the state case and the consequent likelihood to abscond given the likely sentence that may ensue. More
The Plaintiff, in his capacity as the Executor Testamentary of the Estate of the late Richard Alwin Matthews issued Summons out of this court against the Defendant claiming payment of a sum of US$16 149-42 being a loan advanced by the now deceased during his lifetime to the Defendant, plus interest thereon at the prescribed rate from the date of service of summons to date of the full and final payment plus costs of suit on a legal practitioner and client scale. More
The applicant operates a farming enterprise trading under the style of Buckingham Farm, North road, Marondera.
The first and second respondents are trade unions in the agricultural industry whereas the third to fourth respondents are their respective office bearers. The fifth to ninth respondents are its employees and former members of the workers’ committee.
The parties are embroiled in wage disputes concerning the classification of their enterprise. The applicant accuses the respondents of inciting its employees to engage in unlawful collective job action. In a bid to protect its business operations it has now applied for a provisional order interdicting... More
