This is an application brought on an urgent basis for what can be loosely termed as an “anti-dissipation” interdict. The applicant seeks to have her estranged husband (the first respondent) barred from disposing of any of the assets acquired by the two of them during the currency of their union pending the outcome of an action which she has since mounted for an equitable sharing of those assets. This latter claim was brought under case number HCMSF 80/24. More
The 3 applicantsthrough an urgent chamber application seek interim relief for all mining operations at Golden Hill Mine Mashavato be suspended barred or prohibited. Further that in pursuance of the above that applicants are authorised to hire and deploy at the said mine security guards to ensure compliance with the order suspending barring or suspending mining operations at the said mine. More
In this opposed application the applicant seeks the following relief.
“1. The cession of the late Glamous Elliot rights and interest in stand number 3710 Dulibadzumu Township, Beitbridge by the first respondent and approved be the 2nd respondent be and is hereby cancelled.
2. The 2nd respondents to include 3710 Dulibadzimu to the estate of the late Glamous Elliot
3. The respondents to pay costs on attorney client sale.” More
The applicant seeks the following order:-
“IT IS ORDERED THAT
1. The agreement of sale between the applicant and the 4th respondent made and entered into on 30 June 3018 be and is hereby declared lawful and legally binding.
2. The applicant be and is hereby declared to be the lawful holder of fifty percent (50%) shares in Enfield Syndicate the registered holder of seven (7) hectares of Gold Dump Claims in the mining location known as Coronation 2.
3. The 3rd respondent be and is hereby ordered to immediately transfer the fifty percent (50%) shares in Enfield Syndicate from... More
The accused was brought before this court in terms of section 225 (b) (i) of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act [cap 9:07] for purposes of sentence on the instruction of the Prosecutor General. The trial Magistrate had no jurisdiction to impose the minimum mandatory sentence relevant in the matter. More
