KABASA J: This is an urgent chamber application wherein the applicant seeks the following interim relief:-
“The 1st, 2nd and 3rd respondents jointly and severally, the one doing the others to be absolved, be and are ordered to forthwith upon service of this order on them, surrender immediate control of the premises known as No. 1A Dunlop Road, Belmont, Bulawayo to the applicant and pursuant thereto to remove all its locks, chains and other impediments placed or installed at the premises and to thereafter allow applicant undisturbed control and occupation of the premises.” More
It is trite law that when a court has handed down a judgment it becomes functus officio. This court may not therefore revisit its own judgment and seek to vary it. The court is not held functus officio only in instances where the provisions of Rule 449 of the High Court (Civil) Rules, 1971 are invoked. The residual right retained by this court to vary or rescind its own judgment may only be exercised where a judgment has been erroneously sought or granted. More
This is an urgent chamber application brought forth to stop execution of an order of this court under Judgment number HB 191-24. The said order extended time lines within which the parties had to undergo arbitration proceedings that had been authorized by a previous consent order. More
Applicant is the lawful occupier of premises known as Parkview Weizman Sports Club (hereinafter referred to as the premises). Applicant holds a lease with the City of Bulawayo dated 8 June 1956. In or about the year 2001 applicant entered into a verbal sub-lease agreement in terms of which respondent took occupation of a portion of the premises. Respondent leases the premises for the purposes of operating a bar and a hall. In terms of the verbal lease respondent was obliged to pay rentals amounting to US$60 per month. Applicant alleges that respondent has not paid rentals since October 2015.... More
The respondent sought a protection order against the appellant in terms of s 8 of the Domestic Violence Act [Chapter 5:16]. She contended that the appellant was of violent disposition, and had subjected her to physical, emotional, psychological and economic abuse. After reading papers filed of record and hearing the parties the court a quo found that the respondent had proved a case of domestic violence as defined in the Domestic Violence Act. More
