This is an application wherein the applicant seeks an order as follows:
1. The decisions of the 1st and 2nd respondents with regards to the seizure of the applicant’s motor vehicle Registration No. AEA 5210 and the goods therein be and is hereby set aside.
2. The respondents be and are hereby directed to release applicant’s motor vehicle and the seized goods upon payment of the relevant import duty.
3. That respondents pay costs of suit on an attorney and client scale. More
This is an urgent chamber application for an interdict. The matter is opposed. The order sought is couched in the following terms:
“INTERIM RELIEF SOUGHT
Pending confirmation or discharge of the order the applicant is granted the following interim relief:-
1. 1st and 2nd respondents and their employees, agents or assignees be are hereby ordered to stop milling operations in an area approximately 20.9 hectares within the Mining District of Midlands, as specifically described in Special Grant 8841 dated 12 October 2021.
2. Failing which the 4th respondent be and is hereby ordered to enforce this order More
TAKUVA J: The 71 year old accused appeared before a Regional Magistrate at Gweru on 10 October 2019 facing a charge of rape in contravention of section 65 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act (Chapter 9:23) (the Code). The State’s case was that on the 10th of March 2019 at around 1600 hours, the complainant an eleven (11) year old girl was walking in the company of her aunt one Atrona Zhou when the appellant called her into his shop namely shop No. 5 Kandodo Business Centre, Zvishavane. Upon entering the shop the appellant closed the door and... More
1. The plaintiff seeks an eviction order against defendant and all those claiming throughhim from stand Lot 1 of subdivision B of subdivision B of Deneys situate in the district of Gwanda (property). The order is sought on the basis of an alleged unlawful occupation of the property by the defendant. More
This is an application for Summary Judgment in terms of Order 10 Rule 64 of the Rules of this court. The background of the case is that the applicant who is the plaintiff in the main matter issued summons against the respondent. In his summons, applicant claims the sum of $40 697-19 from the respondent. More
