1. This is a bail application pending review. The applicant was charged with the crime of contravening section 3 (1) as read with section 3 (3) of the Gold Trade Act [Chapter 21:03]. He pleaded guilty. The trial court found no special circumstances and he was sentenced to the minimum mandatory sentence of five years imprisonment. Aggrieved by the sentence the applicant filed this application for review. More
This is an appeal against the refusal of the Magistrates court, sitting in Kwekwe, to admit the appellant to bail pending the conclusion of his trial which is already on course. Appellant is charged with the crime of contravening section 3(1)(2)(3) of the Gold Trade Act [Chapter 21:04] “unlawful dealing in gold.” It is being alleged that on the 27 January 2020, and at Mbizo 2 shops, Kwekwe, appellant not being a holder of a permit or licence authorising him to deal in gold, unlawfully bought or received 65 grams of gold. In the alternative, he is charged with the... More
This is an urgent chamber application. According to the certificate of urgency, the applicant is the registered owner of gold mining claims known as Stella A and Stella B, which are adjacent to 1st and 2nd respondents’ gold claim known as Stella C. It is alleged that if 1st and 2nd respondents’ are allowed to carry out mining operations at the disputed mining locations the mineral resource will inevitably be depleted causing irredeemable prejudice to the applicant. It is contended that none of the parties will suffer any irreparable prejudice if the relief prayed for is granted. More
This is an opposed application in which the applicant seeks the following order:
“1. The 1st respondent be and is hereby ordered to enforce and execute the judgment given under HC 573/04 within two days from the date of the order.
2. The 1st respondent be and is hereby ordered to execute on the writ and recover the amount outstanding regard being had to the prevailing bank rate at the time of execution.
3. The 2nd and 3rd respondents be and are hereby ordered to pay costs on attorney and client scale if they oppose the application.”
Background facts
The... More
1. This is an urgent application wherein initially the applicant sought a provisional order. At the hearing the court mero motu raised the issue whether this court has the jurisdiction and the competence to pronounce on the validity or lack thereof of a Supreme Court order. On reflection, Mr Dube counsel for the applicant conceded that this application has no merit and withdrew it tendering payment of costs on a party and party scale. Counsel conceded that this court has neither competence nor jurisdiction to pronounce on the validity or otherwise of an order of the Supreme Court. First respondent... More
