The appellant was convicted on his own plea of guilty to a charge of negligent driving as defined in s 52 (2) (a) of the Road Traffic Act [Chapter 13:11]. The appellant who was driving a Toyota Ipsum was alleged to have rammed into a Honda Ballade motor vehicle which was turning to Mutare Sports Club. More
On 23 February 2022 we dismissed an ex tempore appeal by both appellants and gave reasons in court for such a dismissal. Three months later Messrs Gonese and Ndlovu Legal Practitioners wrote a letter dated 6 June 2022 which was drafted as follows: “Can we please be provided with the Reasons for the judgment as soon as possible.” The record was placed before me on 23 June 2022. It is not clear where it was from 7 June 2022 to 23 June 2022. It is also not clear what the appellants’ legal practitioners were doing from 23 February 2022, yet... More
: On 26th March 2018, I dismissed the claimant’s claim to immovable property which was placed under attachment in execution of the order of this court in HC 196/16. The claimant has requested for written reasons for my disposition. The reasons are captioned herein.
It is important to place the brief background to the interpleader summons into perspective. On the 5th April 2016, MANGOTA J in the matter of CBZ Bank Limited vs Nencon Investments (Pvt) Ltd and Anor HC 196/16 granted the following order: More
: On 31 March 2021 we dismissed an appeal against both conviction and sentence noted by the appellant. We indicated that our reasons will be availed. These are they.
On 24 December 2020 appellant was convicted of Robbery as defined in s 126 (1)(a) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23] and sentenced to 5 years imprisonment of which 6 months was suspended for 5 years on condition of future good behaviour. A further 22 months imprisonment was suspended on condition of restitution. More
The applicant approached the court seeking a servitude of a right of way to access his plot which is land locked. The respondents opposed the application on the basis that the applicant already has access to his plot through another plot namely Plot 1 and further that the applicant is seeking a permanent benefit but has not offered compensation which is associated with such nature of permanent benefit.
The issue that falls for determination in this matter is whether or not the applicant is entitled to the servitude of a right of way. More
