This is an application for rescission of judgment granted in case number HC 2150/07 and subsequently corrected in HC 1148/08. The rescission is sought in terms of Rule 449 of the High Court Rules, 1971.
Rule 449 (1) (a) provides that:-
“The court or a judge may in addition to any other power it or he may have, mero motu or upon the application of any party affected, correct, rescind, or vary any judgment or order-
(a) that was erroneously sought or erroneously granted in the absence of any party affected thereby....”
The applicant, as articulated in his founding affidavit,... More
This is an application for review in terms of O33 r256 wherein the applicant seeks the setting aside of a judgment handed down by the 2nd respondent sitting at Kwekwe Magistrates’ Court on 17th December 2010 on the following grounds: More
This is an application wherein the applicant seeks a declaration of constitutional invalidity of the laws relating to land acquisition and the ones that put the state in a privileged position in the buying and selling of rural land in Zimbabwe. The applicant says he has locus standi as a citizen of Zimbabwe and as a potential land owner and purchaser he has property rights to protect and that he seeks an order declaring the unnecessary and unconstitutional impediments to acquisition of rural land invalid. More
The plaintiff in this matter instituted proceedings against the defendants and prayed for the following;
“a) Payment of Special damages in the sum of US$10 000, (Ten Thousand United States Dollars) being legal costs incurred by the plaintiff in defending themselves as a result of a malicious and false accusation by the defendant that caused the arrest and subsequent trial of the plaintiffs.
b) Payment of the sum of US$90 000.00 (Ninety Thousand United States Dollars) being general damages for humiliation, loss of reputation and good name, and subsequent economic loss as a result of the defendant’s malicious and wrongful... More
The background to this matter explains the very long and elaborate draft order. These background facts are based on the applicant’s version, which is this: the applicant and 1st respondent were known to each other as client and legal practitioner since 2005. The 1st respondent is a legal practitioner and senior partner practicing under Dube-Banda, Nzarayapenga and Partners. The 1st and 2nd respondents are shareholders in the 3rd respondent. The 1st respondent pitched a proposal to the applicant to invest in the 3rd respondent and the applicant duly invested US$400 000 but in the form of a loan. This investment... More
