This application is titled “court application for unlawful disposal of deceased’s immovable property.”The 1st, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th and 11threspondents neither filed opposing papers, nor participated in these proceedings.The 3rd and 4threspondents are cited in their official capacities because the implementation of the order sought by the applicant, if granted may require their services. This application is opposed by the 2nd respondent. The applicant seeks relief couched in the following terms:
i. The certificate issued by the Deputy Master under section 120 of the Administration of Estates Act be and is hereby set aside.
ii. The disposal of... More
The applicants are all facing allegations of armed robbery in contravention of section 126 (1) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act (Chapter 9:23). This is an application for bail pending trial brought by the applicants on the premise that they are suitable candidates for bail. The state opposes the application. Three bail applications have been consolidated and dealt with as one matter. The facts giving rise to the allegations against applicants relate to the same facts and subject matter. The state argues that there is a strong prima facie case against all the applicants and that there are... More
This is an application for a declaratur in terms of section 14 of the High Court Act (Chapter 7:06). The order sought by the applicant in the Draft Order as amended is in the following terms: More
MOYO J: At the hearing of this matter the 1st and 2nd respondents’ counsel raised points in limine the first of which was that applicants have no locus standi.
The applicants are seeking an order for the rescission of the judgment of this court in HC 2291/08 wherein this court declared that the land being the subject matter of this dispute is not subject to any acquisition. Applicants are settlers on the said piece of land. The 1st and 2nd respondents raised points in limine the first of which was challenging the locus standi of the applicants More
This is an application for absolution from the instance at the close of the plaintiff’s case.
The factual background to this case is that on 12th September 2017, the plaintiff caused summons to be issued out of this court against the defendant. In his claim, plaintiff sought payment of the sum of US$150 000 being damages for malicious prosecution arising from plaintiff’s prosecution in the Magistrates’ Court. Plaintiff claims that the prosecution was at defendant’s instigation and that there was no reasonable or probable cause for his prosecution, which was activated by malice. The plaintiff was acquitted on the criminal... More
