This is an urgent application wherein the applicant seeks the following interim relief:
“Pending the confirmation or discharge of this order, that it shall have the effect of,
- Restraining the 1st respondent from allocating the annual quota in respect of Tsholotsho North concession area, being the area leased by the applicant from 1st respondent, to any third party and or issuing hunting permits for the same area leased by applicant.” More
The appellants have noted an appeal to this court against the whole judgment of the Magistrates’ Court sitting at Bulawayo on 2 October 2017.
The grounds of appeal are essentially these:
(a) The learned magistrate in the court a quo erred in dismissing the application for rescission of judgment.
(b) The learned magistrate erred in failing to appreciate that the default judgment was entered erroneously. More
The appellant appeared before a magistrate sitting at Kwekwe facing one count of contravening section 15 (1) (c) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act (Chapter 9:23), cultivating dagga. He was arrested for cultivating 10 plants of dagga which were 30 cm long. Appellant was convicted on his own plea of guilty and sentenced to 12 months imprisonment of which 6 months were suspended for 5 years on the usual conditions of future good conduct. The appellant had an effective term of 6 months imprisonment. More
The application was filed in terms of section 4 of the Administrative Justice Act (Chapter 10:28). The 1st respondent is an administrative authority with powers exercised in terms of the Mines and Minerals Act (Chapter 21:05.).The order sought by the applicant is in the following terms:
“It is ordered that
1. 1st respondent’s letter dated 25 April 2019 and its directions therein, be and is hereby revoked, for failure to comply with proper Administrative Justice.
2. There be no order as to costs.”
It will be noted that the application did not seek any substantive relief against the respondents, save... More
This is an application brought in terms of Rule 67 (1) of the High Court Rules, 2021 for an order that respondent contributes towards applicant’s legal costs. The applicant contends that she has no financial means to pay for her legal costs in a pending divorce under case number HC 1037/20. The application is opposed. Respondent argues that applicant has adequate income to fund her legal expenses, and in any event the amount being claimed by applicant is exaggerated. Respondent contends that the application is an abuse of court process and borne out of malice and vindictiveness. More
