This is an application for rescission of a default judgment brought in terms of Order 49 rule 449 of the High Court Rules, 1971. The judgment sought to be set aside was granted in favour of the 1st respondent on the 4th October 2012. The applicant contends that the judgment was entered without his knowledge and that he only became aware of its existence on 17th January 2018 when his legal practitioners were served with a letter from 1st respondent’s legal practitioners dated 16 January 2018. The applicant avers that the default judgment was erroneously sought and obtained. It is... More
MAKONI J: The applicant, at one point was the registered owner of Stand 606 Northwood Township 4 of Sumben. The property was sold in execution at a public auction and the respondent was confirmed as the highest bidder. The property was transferred into her name on 24 November 1992. The applicant was not happy with the developments resulting in him instituting a plethora of cases against the respondent and other parties. This culminated in the High Court inMhiniv Mapedzamombe 1999(1) ZLR 561 (H) making an order of perpetual silence and that the applicant had to apply for leave of this... More
The plaintiff is the Member of Parliament for Bikita West Constituency. He claims against all the defendants jointly and severally, the one paying the others to be absolved, the sum of US$100 000 being damages for “defamation, injuria and impairment of dignity”, arising from a newspaper article published in The Mirror newspaper of 3 to 9 July 2009. More
The second and third defendants are, in fact, the same person cited twice in the proceedings instituted by the plaintiff by way of summons. The summons was served together with what purports to be the plaintiff’s declaration, to which was attached an “affidavit to prove damages”. In response, the second and third defendants objected to the claim on three distinct grounds. The first objection is by way of exception to the summons and declaration on the basis that they do not disclose a cause of action and, alternatively, that they are vague and embarrassing. The defendants have also raised the... More
The applicant purchased stand number 7 Dove Crescent Vainona (“the property”) from the first respondent. The first respondent and him concluded the agreement of sale on 21 August 2001. More
The appellant in this case was charged in terms of section 44 (2) (a) of the Public Service Regulations 2000 as read with paragraphs 8, 9 and 24 of the First Schedule to the Regulations.
When the allegations were preffered against him, the applicant admitted during the hearing that he had failed to bank school funds. He stated that he had erred in failing to bank the school moneys. More
This is an appeal against the whole judgment of the High Court of Zimbabwe (“the court a quo”) sitting at Harare dated 10 November 2021. In the court a quo, the first and second respondents issued summons against the appellant for cancellation of its title deed over a certain piece of land situate in the district of Salisbury called Stand 2465 Glen Lorne Township (hereinafter called ‘the property”). The appellant counter claimed for their eviction from the property and holding over damages. Judgment was entered for the first and second respondents as against the appellant. It is that judgment that... More
The applicant seeks an order setting aside the judgment, granted after a full trial, by my sister, CHIRAWU-MUGOMBA J, on 10 November 2021 in favour of the first and second respondents under case number HC 8317/10and under Judgment number HH627/21 on the grounds that the judgment in question contains a patent error. More
The twenty applicants have approached this court seeking a spoliation order. They are entreating the court to order the respondent to “restore access, possession and occupation of certain piece of land called Athena of Longford measuring one hundred and twelve comma two hectares to the applicants forthwith by removing the fence it erected around the land” and grant costs against the respondent. More
Defendant does not deny signing the acknowledgement of debt and its validity but challenges the same on two grounds. Firstly, he states that the affidavit was entered into under duress. The amounts reflected therein are usurious, inflated and exaggerated as they did not reflect the actual amount he borrowed and the attendant interest. He further avers that the capital debt he owed which he had borrowed amounts to US$2 300,00 to be paid with an additional interest of 35% translates to total amount of US$3105.00 according to his calculations. The amount was to be paid back in three instalments of... 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
This is an application for bail pending trial.
The applicant is on remand at the Harare Magistrates Court. He is facing one count of robbery and another count of rape as defined in Sections 126 and 65, respectively, of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23] More
This matter is a civil appeal against a judgement entered by a Magistrate sitting at Masvingo.
The respondent issued summons for the eviction of the appellants. An amendment to the summons was later made to include the issue of arrear rentals. The issues agreed to be determined at the trial were as follows:
a) Whether the Plaintiff required the houses to house its employees
b) Whether the Plaintiffhad been recapitalised to commence operations More
The parties entered into a customary union on 25 May, 2007 and on 2 April 2011, they registered their marriage in terms of the Marriages Act [Chapter 5:11]. The couple had two minor children born on 27 December and 12 February, 2012, respectively. More
This is an application for review of the disciplinary proceedings convened by the Respondent against the Applicant.Theapplicant was employed by Respondent until he was dismissed from employment with effect from 16th of October, 2019 which was the date of suspension.
[2] The events leading to his dismissal can be summarised as follows;
The Applicant was employed as a Shelf-Packer. On the 12th of October 2019 whilst on duty at ChoppiesRuwa the Applicant was allegedly caught red-handed by an undercoversecurity guard drinking a Castle Lite in the warehouse belonging to Respondent. According to Respondent a further six more empty beer bottles... More
