This is an application for leave to execute the judgment of this court in Rose Natalie Heuer v Lugania Investments (Pvt) Ltd and Others HB 84-20 handed down by MABHIKWA J on 21st May 2020 pending an appeal noted with the Supreme Court.
The applicant contends that the appeal noted by 1st respondent was filed without the bona fide intention of testing the correctness of the judgment but was noted for the sole purpose of buying time to enable 1st respondent to continue having its mining equipment at the applicant’s mining claims at Empress Mine in defiance of an extant... More
MABHIKWA J: The applicant is a former employee of the respondent. On 7 March 2014, he was suspended on allegations of misconduct. He was given a letter to that effect. He was charged with conduct inconsistent with the fulfillment of express or implied terms of his contract of employment. More
The parties divorced by an order of this court which awarded custody to the applicant herein. Sometime around 2018, respondent brought fresh proceedings in the Victoria Falls Magistrates Court wherein he sued for the custody of the 2 minor children. An order was then issued in the applicant’s absence in favour of respondent in that he was awarded custody rights over the 2 minor children by the Victoria Falls Magistrates Court.
Applicant then seeks a declaration that the Magistrates Court order is invalid and consequently that it be set aside. More
It is common cause that, The 1st Defendant sold her rights, title and interests in STAND No. 104 MAIN STREET, TSHOLOTSHO to Plaintiff sometime in 2003. In 2009 Plaintiff sold to the 2nd Defendant the said property for ZAR60 000.00 [Sixty Thousand Rand] and signed an Agreement of Sale with 2nd Defendant dated 23rd April 2009. The 2nd Defendant took vacant occupation of the said property on the strength of that Agreement of sale and is still in occupation of the premises. The 2nd Defendant only paid a deposit of ZAR30 000.00 (Thirty Thousand South Rand) leaving a balance of... More
1. This is an application brought by the applicant for my recusal from hearing this matter. Before the applicant argued his application for recusal, I placed the following facts on record: that I only knew Mr Jaricha counsel for the respondent only as a legal practitioner appearing before this court. I have never met him outside court and I do not socialise with him. In his brief submissions Mr Jaricha confirmed this position, i.e. that I have never met him outside court and that I do not socialise with him. More
