First and second plaintiffs Simon and Leah Chayayi (“Mr and Mrs Chayayi”) instituted declaratory proceedings for an order confirming their rights title and interest in an immovable property situate in Mutare.
The action was resisted by first, second and third defendants. I will refer to these as “the Harry Trust”, “Mr. Nhiwatiwa” and “Baxter Paints” respectively or just the excipients. The fourth, fifth and sixth defendants are not participant herein. More
A brief background of this matter is a good place to start. The parties are half siblings. Their dispute revolves around the estate of their late father Wise Kambaurayi Guti who died intestate on 10 February 1996. In his estate was an immovable property, Stand Number 3096 Highfield Township, Harare. The plaintiff was appointed heir to his father’s estate by operation of s 6(2) of the Administration of Estates Act [Chapter 6:01]. Resultantly, the plaintiff inherited the property in his personal capacity and it is now registered in his name under Deed of Transfer Number 7493/2000. More
This is a ruling in an application for absolution from the instance at the close of the plaintiff’s case. The basic circumstances are as follows:
The plaintiff is a son to the first defendant. On the 2nd October 2013, the plaintiff issued summons against the first and second defendants seeking an order in the following terms:
1. An order declaring the agreement of sale entered into between the parties in 2001 legal and binding upon the parties
2. An order transferring the right, title and interest in House No. 1740 St. Mary’s Chitungwiza to the Plaintiff within 21 days of... More
On 10 November 2018, I made an endorsement that this matter is not urgent. On 15 November 2018, the applicant’s legal practitioners wrote a letter through the Registrar requesting for audience on the issue of urgency. I caused the matter to be set down for hearing in my chambers on 21 November 2018. This set down torched a storm with the first respondent’s legal practitioner as will be explained later in the judgement. More
This is a purported appeal from proceedings in the magistrate’s court sitting at Rusape. The circumstances were that on the 18 October 2013 the appellant leased his shop to the respondent. The written lease agreement stated, inter alia, that the rental would be $800 per month subject to renew/review after six months.
On 4 August 2015 the appellant sued respondent for arrear rentals in the sum of $3050.00 for the period June 2014 to 30 April 2015 when respondent vacated the premises.
The defendant denied owing the amount and contended that the rentals had been reviewed downwards to $500.00per month... More
