This is an application for stay of execution brought under a certificate of urgency. The draft order is in the following terms:
“Interim relief sought
1. The 3rd and 4th respondents be and are hereby ordered to stay the sale in execution in matter number HC 1774/15 which is scheduled for the 19th November 2021 pending the return date. More
MAKONESE J: In terms of our law, and in accordance with the provisions of section 25 of the Administration of Estates Act (Chapter6:01), a deceased estate is represented by an executor or executrix duly appointed and issued with letters of administration by the Master. An executor accepts the position of legal representative of the deceased with all the rights and obligations attached to that position. It follows that because the deceased estate is vested in the executor, he is the only person who has locus standi to bring any action relative to property belonging to the deceased estate. Any person... More
The genesis of the application as gleamed from the founding affidavit deposed by Patrick Ndiweni is that the 1st respondent built a primary school and a hospital at Tshelanyemba communal lands which is in Kezi in Matobo District. The primary school was later closed in 1968. In 1981 the Government of Zimbabwe allowed for the setting up of a Secondary School within the premises of the now closed primary school. The 1st respondent, being a church, could not be funded by Government to establish the Secondary School, which was to be a boarding school. The church had no resources to... More
TAKUVA J: This is a court application for review. The relief sought is couched in the following terms;
“a) The purported Review Proceedings chaired by the 1st respondent in respect of a tender carried out by applicant under Tsholotsho North Hunting Concession Tender Number TRDC 03/19 be and are nullified.
b) The 3rd respondent shall pay the costs of this application.”
The grounds for this application are:
1. Gross irregularity in the proceedings.
2. Gross irrationality in the proceedings. More
In this matter, plaintiff issued summons on 15 September 2017 where it claimed:
(a) The refund of the US$21 700 being the balance of the purchase price for a stamp mill which the parties agreed that defendant would refund to the plaintiff following the parties’ agreement to cancel the contract of sale. Plaintiff had allegedly bought a stamp mill from the defendant.
(b) Costs of suit.
In its plea, defendant admitted that the parties entered into an agreement of sale, save to say that such agreement was oral. Defendant also admitted that plaintiff paid $26 700 towards the purchase price.... More
