The relief sought in this application is that of a declaratur. The applicant is a former employee of the Sports and Recreation Commission, (hereinafter referred to as the Commission). More
This dispute concerns immovable deceased estate property. Plaintiff is the executor in the estate of her late father Isaac Musarara. Isaac Musarara died on 20 January 1993 at Mazowe. He is survived by his wife and five children. He owned immovable property situated at number 1, 39th Crescent, Warren Part 1, Harare. At the time of his death he leased out this property as he resided in the communal lands. The deceased’s brothers agreed that Lovemore Musarara, deceased’s younger brother supervised this immovable property and generally the deceased’s affairs. In the course of this supervision Lovemore Musarara obtained letters of... More
This court application is brought in terms of Order 32 of the High Court Rules, 1971 (before they were repealed) as read with section 175 (6) and section 85 (1) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe.
Order 32 deals with the procedure for applications. Section 175 (6) of the Constitution provides that; “(6) When deciding a constitutional matter within its jurisdiction a court may—
(a) declare that any law or conduct that is inconsistent with the Constitution is invalid to the extent of the inconsistency;
(b) make any order that is just and equitable, including an order limiting the retrospective effect... More
On 29 March 2008, the harmonised presidential, parliamentary and council elections were held in Zimbabwe. The petitioner stood as the candidate on behalf of Zimbabwe African National Union (Patriotic Front) ‘ZANU PF’ for the House of Assembly seat in the constituency of Mbare. The first respondent contested the seat on behalf of the Movement for Democratic Change ‘MDC’. The second respondent was responsible to conduct and supervise the polls. On 30 March, 2008 the first respondent was declared the winner of the seat. More
This application was initially set down for hearing on the 8th of February 2022. The applicant, then a self-actor, made an application for a postponement on the basis that he had engaged a legal practitioner but had not yet finalised with him. Although the application was opposed, the court granted the application and indicated to him that the matter would proceed on the 11th of February 2022. On that date, the applicant’s legal practitioner appeared and indicated that the Advocate whom they had engaged had advised him that morning that she was unavailable due to ill-health. The court indicated that... More
