This was an urgent chamber application for a stay of execution pending the determination of an application for rescission of judgment. The first respondent took a point in limine that the matter was not urgent. I reserved judgment on that and directed argument on the merits. Towards the end of submissions it seemed the matter could be amicably resolved by treading the middle path. By consent I could order a stay provided the applicant paid security in terms of Order 32 r 246[3]. More
This was an urgent chamber application for a stay of execution pending the determination of an application for rescission of judgment. The first respondent took a point in limine that the matter was not urgent. I reserved judgment on that and directed argument on the merits. Towards the end of submissions it seemed the matter could be amicably resolved by treading the middle path. By consent I could order a stay provided the applicant paid security in terms of Order 32 r 246[3]. It reads: More
Up until recently the applicant was a member of the Zimbabwe Prisons and Correctional Services (ZPCS). He was discharged by the Commissioner General of Prisons and Correctional Services, (the second respondent) following disciplinary proceedings conducted under the Prisons (Staff) (Discipline) Regulations, 1984 (‘the regulations”). He now brings this application in terms of ss 26 & 27 of the High Court, [Chapter 7:06] for a review of that decision. He seeks to have it set aside on the basis that according to him the procedure leading to his discharge was marred by several procedural irregularities. More
This is an appeal against the whole judgment of the Magistrates court sitting at Chiredzi (“the court a quo”) dismissing the appellant’s application for an interdict. The applicant had approached the court a quo seeking an order interdicting the first respondent from interfering with his (i.e., appellant’s) utilisation of a 10 hectare stretch of land situated between their respective farms which are adjacent. Both are resettlement farms in the Chiredzi district of Masvingo province, namely Subdivision 3 of Hippo Valley settlement Holdings (Subdivision 3) and Hippo Valley Settlement Holdings Lot 53 (the remaining extent of Lot 53). They were allocated... More
MAMBARA J: This matter was set down on the unopposed roll after the defendant’s plea was struck out for non-attendance at the pre-trial conference and her subsequent application for rescission was deemed abandoned. Liability is therefore not in issue; the court is seized only with the assessment of quantum under r 25(1) of the High Court Rules, 2021.
The plaintiff seeks US $50 000, broken down into US $30 000 for contumelia and US $20 000 for loss of consortium, arising from a protracted adulterous relationship between the defendant and the plaintiff’s husband that began in 2019, produced two children,... More
