The applicants approached this court on an urgent basis for the following relief;
“TERMS OF FINAL ORDER SOUGHT
That you show cause to this Honourable Court why a final order should not be made in the following terms:-
1. The second respondent be barred from removing and selling the second applicant’s property that he has attached.
2. First respondent pays costs of this application on in the event that it opposed this application. More
Appellant Berlin Dombodzvuku, a member of the Zimbabwe Republic Police forces Charges of unlawful possession 143.95 kg of dagga in contravention of s 57(i)(a) of the Criminal Law (Codification & Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23]. He applied for bail pending trial before a Magistrates’ court at Marondera after being apprehended by police on the 8 of July 2021 for being in unlawful possession of 143,95 kg of dagga packed in 6 bags loaded in his motor vehicle. More
The parties are parents to three minor children, two daughters and a son. They were divorced by an order of this court under case no HC 9397/05. In terms of the order of this court divorcing the parties, matters relating to the custody, access to and maintenance of the minor children were to be governed by the provisions of a consent paper entered into by the parties prior to the granting of the divorce. In terms of the consent paper, custody was awarded to the respondent. More
On 12 December 2005, the respondent issued summons out of the magistrates’ court at Harare claiming division of certain property and costs of suit. In the claim the respondent alleged that she was in an unregistered customary union with the appellant which has since dissolved. She further alleged that during the subsistence of the union, she and the appellant jointly acquired certain movable property which she listed in an annexure to the summons. She averred that it would be just and equitable for the property so listed to be distributed as between the parties. More
This Application concerns a double sale of an immovable property called Stand 1015 Heights Kariba (the property). The parties to the application are set out in the heading. I do not therefore restate them. The background facts are not in serious dispute.
At the commencement of the hearing the first and the second respondents opposing papers and heads of argument were time barred. The bar was uplifted by consent. The first and the second respondents then formally withdrew case No HC 5015/22 and tendered costs on the legal practitioner and client scale. Case No HC 5015/22 was an application to... More
