1. On the 16 February 2017, plaintiff sued out a summons against 1st defendant seeking an order couched in the following terms:
i. An order confirming the cancellation of an agreement of sale entered into by and between plaintiff and defendant in respect of a property known as a certain piece of land being stand number 6505 Bulawayo Township of stand 6541A Bulawayo Township, situate in the District of Bulawayo and which cancellation was occasioned by defendant’s breach of the terms and conditions of the said sale agreement. More
At the conclusion of the hearing of this matter I handed down an ex tempore judgment and dismissed the application.
Notwithstanding that none of the parties has asked for written reasons I decided to furnish them nonetheless. More
This is a chamber application for condonation for late filing of an application for review. I dismissed the application in an ex-tempore judgment after hearing from the parties. The parties have not asked for written reasons but I decided to provide them in anticipation of such a request.
Rule 62 (4) provides that:
“Any proceedings by way of review shall be instituted within eight weeks of the termination of the suit, action or proceedings in which the irregularity or illegality complained of is alleged to have occurred.” More
This is a claim for divorce and ancillary relief. At a pre-trial conference the parties agreed that their marriage has irretrievably broken down and that it cannot be salvaged. They however, failed to resolve the issue of a Mercedes Benz motor vehicle registration number ADH 7024 and the immovable property known as stand 1724 Emganwini in Bulawayo. The parties were married to each other in terms of the Marriages Act Chapter 37 on the 20th of October 1989. At the time of divorce there are no minor children born of the marriage, all children are majors. More
1. This is an application for bail pending appeal against conviction and sentence. The applicants together with another person who is not part of this application were arraigned before the Magistrates’ Court sitting at Beitbridge. They were charged with eight counts of fraud as defined in section 136 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 09:23]. They were convicted and each sentenced to thirty months imprisonment with six months suspended for five years on the usual conditions and a further eight months suspended on condition of restitution. More
