This matter is a civil appeal against a judgement entered by a Magistrate sitting at Masvingo.
The respondent issued summons for the eviction of the appellants. An amendment to the summons was later made to include the issue of arrear rentals. The issues agreed to be determined at the trial were as follows:
a) Whether the Plaintiff required the houses to house its employees
b) Whether the Plaintiffhad been recapitalised to commence operations More
The applicant was arrested for theft of a motor vehicle. He was remanded in custody. He applied for bail pending trial. The respondent, the State, opposed the application. More
The court a quo in this matter was confronted with the fact that when the complainant was arrested at his business premises in Burma Valley, Mutare by CID details based at CID Mutare he had no injuries but when he later emerged from the CID offices he had been physically violated. The issue which the court a quo had to deal with was not only whether the complainant had been assaulted at CID offices Mutare but who had assaulted him. The complainant implicated two CID details one NdiudzeiMagawa and the appellant Collen Chirema. It is therefore clear that what confronted... More
This is an appeal mainly against that part of the judgment handed down by the Magistrates Court sitting at Masvingo ordering the eviction of the appellants from houses belonging to the respondent. The appellants took occupation of the said houses (hereinafter referred to as “the company houses”) on account of their employment with the SMM Holdings.
In the court below the respondent instituted two separate but related claims against the appellants. In the first claim it sought the eviction of the appellants from the company houses on the basis of the termination of their employment and the concomitant loss of... More
This matter was first placed before my brother MAFUSIRE J on 2 February 2017. The applicants successfully sought his recusal and since we are only two judges at the station the matter landed on my desk. I proceeded to set the matter down for hearing on 8 February 2017 but on that date I was advised that Counsel for all the respondents were not available due to earlier commitments. I was compelled to reschedule the matter for hearing on 15 February 2017. More
