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
Facts in this matter seem to be common cause save as may be specified. The Applicant and the Respondent are companies duly registered as such in terms of the laws of Zimbabwe. Some time in 2004, the Minister of Lands compulsorily acquired the property known as Lot 1A of Teviotdale, measuring 147,1169 morgen, (hereinafter called “the property”) held under certificate of title number 3873/56 which at the material time belonged to the Applicant. This piece of property was later awarded, through the offer letter, to the Respondent in 2011. The Applicant later approached this court under case number HC 3383/20... More
On the 13th of September 2022, after hearing this matter I gave judgment ex tempore, as follows.
(1) The agreement of sale between the late John Vigo Naested entered into on the 12th of August 2020 in respect of a property known as Lot 18 Gardiner East of Gardiner situated in the district of Goromonzi held under deed of transfer no. 6791/2018 otherwise known as 18 Gardiner Road, Goromonzi be and is hereby cancelled.
(a) The 1st respondent and all those claiming title through it shall vacate the property described in paragraph 1 of this order within a period of... More
At the conclusion of submissions in this application, I immediately pronounced that I was striking this matter off the roll because it was wholly unprocedural. I reserved my ruling on the first respondent’s application for costs de bonis propriis against the law firm representing the applicant, namely C Nhemwa & Associates. I indicated the detailed reasons for striking the matter off the roll would appear in my written judgment. More
The applicant seeks the joinder of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd respondents in proceedings pending before this court under HC 8780/19 (the main application). The application was made in terms of r 87(2)(b) of the High Court Rules, 1971 (the Rules). The relief sought is couched in the draft order as follows:
“IT IS ORDERED THAT:-
1. The Application for Joinder be and is hereby granted.
2. The 1st, 2nd and 3rd Respondents be and are hereby joined as 7th, 8th and 9th Respondents in Case No. HC. 8780/19.
3. That 1st, 2nd and 3rd Respondents each be given ten... More
