This matter came by way of a Chamber Application. I dismissed the application. The applicants have written a letter requesting for full reasons. These are they.
The application is for stay of proceedings for summary judgements pending determination ofan application for joinder. More
On 15 July 2021 this court under Case No. HC 369/20 delivered a judgment by consent obliging the plaintiff to vacate a piece of land identified as subdivision 3 of Cambria farm situate in Masvingo upon the expiration of 6 months’ notice commencing the date of the issuance of the consent order. In return, the defendant was required to compensate the plaintiff for the value of the improvements effected on that property which value was to be determined by Great Zimbabwe Realtors. The evaluation was done and the value of the improvements was given as $30 500. Of that amount... More
There has been an inordinate delay in delivering judgment in this matter. It was a criminal appeal from the magistrates’ court. We heard argument on 2 August 2017 and reserved judgment. My Brother, MAWADZE J, was the lead judge in the case. It was hoped to deliver judgment in the forthcoming weeks. It was not to be. A dreadful family tragedy struck and scuttled all the work in progress, leaving the station somewhat disoriented for some considerable time afterwards. A horrific traffic accident claimed the lives of the Judge’s beloved wife; his driver and his sister-in-law. May the souls of... More
This matter epitomizes the dangers inherent in the multiplicity of proceedings in different courts over basically the same dispute. This is clearly undesirable. More
The issue which arises in this matter is rather a novel one.
It is important for counsel to apply their minds to all matters which they deal with especially statutory offences. I find if unfair that counsel would not endeavour to carry out any meaningful research but rather swallow hook, line and sinker all what would have happened in the lower court. This is what happened in this matter and both counsel later admitted that they also doubted the propriety of the charge preferred against the appellant but nonetheless did not raise any eye brows. More
