On 30 September 2022 the applicant entered into a joint venture and partnership agreement with the respondent. The purpose of the partnership was to conduct mining operations on certain mining gold claims being registration numbers 46081-09 and 46814. The applicant contends that the partnership agreement had been terminated by mutual consent. The termination was caused by the fact that the mining venture proved unviable and unprofitable. The dispute turns on the contention by the applicant that it is being refused to remove its equipment from the mining claims. More
The applicant is a South African national ordinarily resident in the Republic of South Africa. He is facing charges of theft as defined in section 113 (1) of the Criminal Law Codification and Reform Act (Chapter 9:23). The allegations are that on the 25th of June 2019 he stole a truck, an Iveco Tracker, registration number HXP 425 MP from a parking bay in South Africa, by means of forged and fraudulent documents. On the following day, a report was made to the police. A tracking device on the vehicle was activated and indicated that the vehicle was crossing into... More
This is a dispute involving the sale of mining claims. Plaintiff believed that he was entering into a very good deal with the 1st defendant being represented by the 2nd defendant. In actual fact, it turned out to be a very bad deal for him. The drama unfolded on 15 January 2007 when plaintiff and 1st defendant entered into a written agreement of sale in respect of four (4) gold mining claims being Gazemba 105 to 108, Copper Queen under Gweru Mining District.
The material terms of the agreement were as follows:
1. That the seller (plaintiff herein) sold to... More
This is a court application for contempt of court. The applicant seeks that the respondents be held to be in contempt of court, and as a sanction thereof be ordered to pay a fine and to comply with the court order.
[2] The respondents in this contempt of court application are the Provincial Mining Director – Gweru and the Minister of Mines and Mining Development. At the commencement of the hearing, Mr Mutatu Counsel for the applicant informed the court that the respondents were consenting to the order sought. Mr Jukwa Counsel for the respondents confirmed that indeed the respondents... More
This is an urgent application wherein applicant at the hearing of the matter, raised a point in limine to the effect that the 2nd respondent’s papers should be expunged from the court record and the matter be dealt with as unopposed because the notice of opposition failed to comply with Rule 58 (2) (c) where it is provided that, “Every written application and notice of opposition shall:- Give an address for service which shall be within a radius of ten kilometres from the registry in which the document is filed.” More
