Welcome to Midlands State University Library

Court Judgements



Browse Court Judgements by court
This is an urgent chamber application in which a certificate of urgency was issued by a legal practitioner certifying it as urgent. The matter was placed before me through the Chamber Book on 14 February 2012. On the same day I directed that applicant serve all the respondents with a copy of the application in compliance with r 242 (1) of the High Court Rules, 1971. Proof of such service was to be filed to indicate that this directive has been complied with, unless one of the things specified in that rule is shown to exist and the practitioner concerned... More

The applicant was on 16 March, 2016 convicted on his plea of guilty by the magistrate at Chinhoyi for the offence of stock theft as defined in s 114 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23]. More

The plaintiff is claiming the payment of US$55,908,185-52 together with interest calculated at the rate of 22% from the date of judgment to the date of payment from all the defendants; jointly and severally: with the qualification that fourth and fifth defendant’s liability be limited to US500,000-00 each. (fourth and fifth defendants provided limited guarantees). More

This is an urgent chamber application for an order interdicting the first and second respondents from carrying on construction of roads or other infrastructure at Stand 21510 Kuwadzana Township of Fauntainbleu. This is also the same relief which is being sought on the return date save that in the terms of the final order sought the relief is being sought pending the finalisation of proceedings instituted separately under Case Numbers HC 1179/20, HC 2149/21 and HC 3425/21. More

Given the fact that the defendants were served with a notice to attend this pre-trial conference hearing about 12 days ago and that they are not in attendance thirty-one minutes after the scheduled hearing time and that there is no cogent explanation for their absence at court, I believe the application for default judgment is quite justifiable. The lackadaisical approach adopted by the defendant cannot be tolerated. More