This is an urgent chamber application for a spoliation order that was filed by the applicant on 12 September 2007. It was allocated to me on 13 September 2007 and I set it down for hearing on 18 September 2007. All the respondents filed opposing papers. The applicant did not have an opportunity to file his answering affidavit as the opposing affidavits were filed on 17 September by the fourth respondent and during the hearing by the first to third respondents (the new farmers). More
On 22 September, 2016, we dismissed the above appeal, with each party to bear its own costs. On 16 May, 2017, the appellant wrote a letter to the Registrar asking for the reasons for judgment. This is what prompted us to write this judgment. More
on 18th September 2018, I presided over an ex-parte urgent chamber application for stay of execution pending rescission of judgment at the conclusion of which I rendered an ex –tempore judgment dismissing the application. The applicant having appealed these are my written reasons for judgment. More
On 28 May 2021, plaintiff caused the issuance of summons against first and second defendants claiming:
(a) revocation of a donation he made in their favour in respect of a piece of land called the Remainder of Lot 135 Athlone Township of Green Grove situate in the district of Salisbury and held under Deed of Transfer 320/2000 also known as 10 Hopley Avenue Athlone, Greendale, Harare (the property).
(b) that third defendant be ordered to register the property in the plaintiff’s name.
(c) that third defendant be ordered not to allow the sale of the property by first and second... More
The background of the matter is that the applicants are involved in on-going litigation with the respondent. The main matter, HC 2173/08, to which the present application for rescission relates was scheduled to be heard on 19 November 2009. The applicants, together with their legal practitioner, did not make an appearance. No explanation was tendered on behalf of both the applicants and their legal practitioner at the hearing. The respondent sought and obtained judgment by default against the applicants in that main matter. The applicants’ legal practitioner later learnt of the judgment against his clients when he made follow-up on... More
