MAKONESE J: This is an urgent chamber application framed by the applicant as an urgent chamber application for a temporary interdict and consequential relief on the return date. The draft order is for the following relief:-
“TERMS OF INTERIM RELIEF
Pending the finalisation of this matter, the applicant is granted the following interim relief:-
(a) That the first respondent and all those claiming occupation through her be and are hereby interdicted from conducting any mining operations and/or collecting any mining ores from Bonsor SW mine and/or Olympia 7 mine forthwith.
(b) The second and third respondents be and are hereby... More
This is an application to set aside the order of this court for MABHIKWA J dated 7th July 2020. The application is brought in terms of Rule 449 of the High Court Rules 1971. The application is opposed.
On 2nd November 2020 I heard oral argument and reserved judgment in the matter. I indicated at the time that it appeared that 1st respondent was duly barred for failing to file heads of argument. 1st respondent’s counsel indicated that he intended to file an application for condonation for the late filing of such heads of argument. I did not deem it... More
DUBE-BANDA J: This is a bail application pending trial. Applicantand other persons are jointly charged with the crime of robbery as defined in section 126 (1) (a) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23]. It being alleged that:-on 25 May 2021, at around 0100hours, applicant with other co-accused persons armed themselves with a 303 rifle, two pistols, machetes, knives and iron bars and robbed three complainants of their vehicles, cash and cell phones after threatening to shoot them with their firearms. More
The applicant seeks an order to the following effect:-
1. Applicants be and are hereby declared as majority shareholders of 2nd respondent jointly and severally owning 57,45% of the shares.
2. The share certificate purporting that 4th respondent is the 100% shareholder of 2nd respondent be and is hereby declared null and void. More
This was an opposed court application for the rescission of a default judgment made in terms of Order 9 Rule 63 of the High Court Rules 1971. I dismissed the application and below are my reasons for the dismissal.
The applicants contended that on 13 April 2013, respondent, (who is the plaintiff in HC 3534/12) got a default judgment in case No. HC 296/13 by way of summary judgment. It was the applicants’ contention that they only became aware of the said judgment on 20 October 2015 when a notice to attach and sell their immovable property was found at... More
