On the 5th June 2006 the plaintiff issued summons against the defendants seeking an order for the cancellation of an agreement of sale against the refund of all amounts paid by the defendants on account of the purchase price as at the date of issue of the summons. The defendants disputed the claims by the plaintiffs. The matter proceeded to trial. At the close of the plaintiffs’ case, I granted absolution from the instance. The matter went on appeal.The Supreme Court set aside the order for absolution and the matter was referred back for evidence to be led from the... More
Where a party institutes legal action for delictual damages arising out of a road traffic accident the pleadings must set out the particulars of negligence. It is imperative for the plaintiff to allege wrongfulness and unlawfulness of the defendant’s conduct in the pleadings. In this matter, the court has had to extract these particulars from the plaintiff, a scenario which should never occur. All the material aspects of the alleged negligence must be specifically pleaded and must appear ex facie, the declaration. More
The applicants are facing charges of rape in violation of section 65(1) of the Criminal Law Codification and Reform Act (Chapter 9:23). Applicants deny the allegations and contend that they had consensual sexual intercourse with the complainant. More
DUBE-BANDA J: This is an application for bail pending trial. This application was considered on the papers filed by the parties without oral argument, in accordance with paragraph 4 of Practice Directive 2 of 2021 issued by the Chief Justice of Zimbabwe. Applicant is being charged with the crime of rape as defined in section 65(1) (b) of the Criminal Law [Codification and Reform] Act [Chapter 9:23].It being alleged that; on a date unknown, but during the period extending from June to October 2020, applicant unlawfully and knowingly had sexual intercourse with a female aged 13 years several times on... More
On 18 January 2018, applicant filed with this Honourable Court, an application for contempt of court against the three respondents. The applicant implored this Honourable court to declare that 1st, 2nd, and 3rd respondents are in contempt of its order as a result of their perceived “deliberate refusal” to comply with an order of this court under cover of case number HC 1814/12 per HonourableKAMOCHA J.
In effect, the applicant complains that the respondents have actually disobeyed two (2) orders of this Honourable Court, both by HonourableJUSTICE KAMOCHA. It is pertinent to highlight the operative parts of the two judgments... More
