1. This is a chamber application for condonation of non-compliance with r 37 (2) and extension of time within which to file the appeal. The application is purportedly brought in terms of r 43 (1) of the Supreme Court Rules, 2018 (the Rules). The application is opposed. More
This is an urgent chamber application for an order directing the Registrar to set down for hearing on an urgent basis the main application the applicants purported to file on 1 March 2018. The applicants are political parties represented by Mr Mukwazhe, who is the leader of the first applicant. In the application purportedly filed on 1 March 2018, under case no. CCZ 11/18 (the main application), the applicants did not seek leave to file the application. An endorsement was made on the application to the effect that leave to apply for direct access to the Constitutional Court (“the Court”)... More
BHUNU JA: This appeal from the High Court has its genesis in the Magistrates Court which acquitted both appellants on one charge of fraud as defined in s 136 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23] and, secondly, operating an unregistered trust in contravention of s 9 of the Private Voluntary Organisations Act [Chapter 17:05]. Aggrieved by the acquittal of both appellants on the firstcount the respondent appealed to the High Court (the court a quo). More
This is a composite judgment in respect of two appeals which were, at the request of the parties, consolidated and heard at the same time. The appeals are against two separate judgments by the High Court dismissing special pleas of prescription raised by the appellants in respect of a claim for specific performance launched by the respondent. More
The applicant in this matter is a self-actress seeking the indulgence of this Court to begranted condonation for non-compliance with the Rules. On 29 March 2023, her applicationfor direct access to this Court under Case No. CCZ 55/22 was struck off the roll due to herfailure to effect proper service on the first respondent. The application was one of many suitsbetween the applicant and the firstrespondent who have beendeadlocked inprotractedlitigationsince2016when thelatter sought toevict theformer from hisproperty.
The dispute between the parties appeared to have reached finality when the SupremeCourt, in Case No.SC 443/21, dismissed the applicant’s appeal in which she... More
These two matters involve related issues between the same parties. It is convenient that they be dealt with together. The applicants in the first matter are the respondents in the second matter. They seek the provisional order under the certificate of urgency, suspending the order granted in favour of the respondent in a magistrate’s court in case number 9100/12 pending the determination of an appeal against that order filed with the Supreme Court. The back ground to these cases is that Precious ChinyereOkeke is married to Chief Jerome Okeke, a Nigerian businessman resident in Zimbabwe. At some point during their... More
This is an opposed chamber application for leave to appeal purportedly in terms of r 60(2) of the Supreme Court Rules, 2018. After hearing the application, I gave an ex tempore judgment striking the matter off the roll for the reason that the application was fatally defective. The applicants have requested for written reasons for my decision. These are they. More
On 8 December 2022, the High Court, sitting at Harare, dismissed an urgent chamber application for an order of a stay of execution mounted by the applicants in response to an advert for the sale in execution of immovable properties at the instance of the first respondent herein. In determining the matter, the High Court held that the application for an order of a stay of execution of the properties was ill-fated due to the fact that the premise upon which the applicants sought reliance was not in their favour. More
After hearing submissions by counsel in the two applications, the Court made the following order:
“After considering the papers filed in this matter and hearing submissions by counsel, the Court unanimously concludes that both applications have no merit and are hereby dismissed with costs on the ordinary scale.” More
The two matters herein are applications for leave to appeal, lodged in terms of r 32(2) of the Constitutional Court Rules 2016, against two separate judgments of the Supreme Court. The first judgment (No. SC 131/21) was handed down in Case No. SC 153/20, while the second judgment (No. SC 132/21) was delivered in Case No. SC 125/21. More
This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court holding that a conglomerate is a “merger” as defined in terms of s 2 of the Competition Act [Chapter 14:28] (“the Act”) and, therefore, notifiable to the respondent in terms of s 3A of the Act if its value exceeded the statutory threshold. More
This is an application for condonation for late filing of an appeal. The application is opposed.
The simple facts of this case are that applicant was a member of the Zimbabwe Republic Police “ZRP”. In 2015 he was convicted by the Magistrate for domestic violence. He was sentenced to perform community service of which he did. The applicant was later in October 2015 arraigned before a single trial officer for disciplinary hearing in terms of the Police Act. He was convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of $5. More
This is an appeal against part of the judgment of the High Court (the court a quo) sitting at Harare, dated 26 May 2021 wherein the court a quo granted an application made by the first respondent for the registration of a foreign judgment emanating from the Business and Property Court of the United Kingdom and Wales as a judgment of the High Court of Zimbabwe, capable of execution within Zimbabwe. More
This is an appeal against the whole judgment of the High Court handed down on 31 March 2015, in which the court a quo dismissed the appellants’ application for rescission of judgment for want of prosecution. More
