This matter came up as an appeal from a judgment of the Magistrates Court sitting at Masvingo on 2 March, 2018. In the court a quo the now respondent applied for and obtained an order of eviction against the now appellant. The background of the matter is as follows:-
The respondent is the owner of 18 Msasa Road, Westonlee, Mashava which was built to house its employees. The said house was allocated to Juma Phiri then an employee of respondent. It was tied to his employment it being understood that the said house remained the property of respondent and applicant... More
On 10 June 2020 we dismissed the appellant’s appeal in respect of sentence after hearing arguments from counsel. We gave our detailed reasons ex tempore.
On 15 June 2020 I received a letter from appellants counsel dated 12 June, 2020 in which a request for written reasons for dismissing the appeal was made. I now provide the reasons hereunder; More
This was a civil appeal. The dispute was deceptive in its simplicity. In the court a quo the parties even went on a stated case. But it was a tricky matter of interpretation of a statute. We thank counsel for commendable research and able argument. More
The 1st Respondent is Zimbabwe’s current Minister of Finance and economic development. He was cited here in his official capacity as such. On the 1st of August 2019 he delivered before Parliament his mid-year budget review and supplementary budget. Below are the relevant excerpts thereof (paragraphs 54-56) which ignited this current dispute. More
In the magistrates court the respondent sued the first appellant, a businesswoman, for eviction from certain business premises. The respondent was the executor dative to his late brother’s estate. The respondent claimed that during his life time the deceased had been allocated by the second appellant, a local authority, some business stands at Rudhanda Business Centre in Zaka, Masvingo. He averred that on one of such stands the deceased had intended to construct a supermarket. He alleged the deceased had developed it to footing level when the second appellant wrongfully allocated the property to the first appellant. More
