This is a ruling on a point of law raised in a parent dispute whose fuller facts I set out under judgment number HH 93-24. In essence, applicant approached the court on motion seeking an order declaring two agreements of sale of land between itself and first respondent invalid. It also prayed for the refund of purchase price in the sum of US$220,000. This is the extant dispute between the parties More
This case can best be described as an attempt to “close the stables when the horse has bolted”.
This is an urgent Chamber Application seeking the stray of execution of a High Court Order granted on 16th December 2022 under case number HC 5202/22. The urgent chamber application also seeks that the second respondent be interdicted from selling Applicant’s goods that were placed under judicial attachment on the strength of the Court Order in question and the subsequent writ of execution. More
These are the reasons.
The applicant filed a written application for leave to appeal my judgment under HH 417/18 wherein I found its urgent chamber application as not urgent. I ordered that it be removed from the roll of urgent matters. I also ordered that the applicant pays the first and second respondents’ costs on the higher scale.
The facts of the matter are set out in my judgment under HH 417/18.
The determining factor in an application for leave to appeal is the existence of prospects of success on appeal. More
This is an application for stay of execution of orders of the Magistrates Court in case No. 255/12 dated 9 and 23 February 2012.
The background to the application is that on 5 January 2012, the applicant filed an application seeking the ejectment of the respondents from No. 144 Nelson Mandela Avenue, Harare (the premises). The applicant alleged in the application that it is in occupation of No 142/4 Nelson Mandela Avenue, Harare pursuant to a lease agreement with a company called Zeolite Investments (Pvt) Ltd dated 22 March 2011. Prior to the conclusion of the lease agreement, the premises... More
n an action which it filed with the court on 18 February 2016, the applicant sued the respondent. It claimed from the respondent:
(a) payment of $14 7698.14 which it said was for:
(i) catering services it rendered to the respondent for the period 2012 to 2015 – and
(ii) collection Commission at the rate of 10% of the principal debt;
(b) interest at the prescribed rate per annum – and
(c) costs of suit. More
