Sometime in October 2006 the plaintiffs contracted the defendant to refurbish their swimming pool whereupon the defendant rendered defective service thereby giving rise to a claim for specific performance or alternatively damages in the sum of US$7 904 235. 00. More
The Applicant is the owner of certain mining claims situated in Mutoko Mashonaland East Mining Province being Mutoko Gold 32 Registration Number 40675 BM, and Mutoko Gold registration Number 37016 BM [hereinafter referred to as the Mutoko Gold Claims]. The Respondent is the owner of certain mining claims which are also in the Mutoko area.
The Applicant and Respondent are engaged in a dispute in respect of 503 granite mining blocks which the Applicant alleges the Respondent mined from the boundaries of the Applicant’s Mutoko Gold Claims. The dispute is currently pending under HC 3813/23. More
This is an appeal against the whole judgment of the High Court (the court a quo) sitting at Mutare handed down on 12 August 2021 cancelling the agreement of sale entered into between the second and third respondents pertaining to stand 2427 Umtali Township, Mutare, and, dismissing the appellant’s counter claim. More
The plaintiff as represented by its Managing Director Ms Elizabeth Chidavaenzi issued summons out of this court on 9 June 2008 seeking the ejectment of the defendant from stand number 3182 of subdivision A of stand 159 Prospect in Harare (‘the property’). More
This is an application for a mandament van spolie. The applicant is a company which carries on business as a land developer. The first respondent is a company in the same business as the applicant. The second respondent controls the first respondent. His position in that company is not described in the papers. More
HC 5357/ 22 is intertwined with the present application. The parties are the same and the substance of the two cases rests on the same subject-matter. In casu, Drew and Fraser International (Pvt) Ltd and Euphrasia Mupedzisi (“the applicant) are a legal entity and a natural person respectively. The applicant applies for leave to appeal the decision which I made on 15 February 2023 under HC 5357/22 which is the decision of one Nicodimus Kuipa N.O. and the Estates Agents Council of Zimbabwe, the respondent a quo, as well as in this application which the applicant filed under HC 1398/23.... More
The material background facts to the matter are as follows; the Respondent was employed as a sales representative by Appellant. He was initially hired on a commission basis; a contract of employment was allegedly later signed between Respondent and one Jonathan Dube a farmer employee of the Appellant currently serving a jail term for defrauding the Appellant. More
This is an appeal against the decision of the Labour Court confirming the draft ruling of the respondent, a labour officer. The ruling was in favour of the appellant’s former employee, Ms Umarah Khan whose contract of employment was summarily terminated as from 15 April 2015 on allegations of certain acts of misconduct, including theft. More
In this matter the plaintiff, by way of a provisional sentence summons, claims payment of US$55 895.21 together with interest calculated at 5% per annum.
The claim is based on an account reconciliation, an alleged written acknowledgement of debt, a letter from Lunar Chickens and a letter from first defendant’s legal practitioners. The defendant raises the defence, inter alia, that it paid the debt to plaintiff’s creditor. For this reason, the first defendant argues that provisional sentence must be refused with costs on a punitive scale. More
This judgment covers two urgent applications. The parties are the same. I shall refer to the first application as “the application.” In opposing the application, the respondent raised a counter-application, (hereinafter referred to as “the counter-application.) For convenience, the citation of the parties shall remain the same in both the application and counter-application. I will deal with the application and counter-application separately in this judgment. Both applications are fiercely contested. More
This is an application filed on urgency by a self-actor seeking an order in the following terms;
“INTERIM RELIEF:
a) An order barring and interdicting the respondents from disturbing or interfering with the applicant’s right to prospect minerals at Queensdale Farm in Kadoma.
b) An order directing the respondents to observe peace at the applicant and its assignees.
TERMS OF FINAL ORDER SOUGHT
1. It is hereby declared that the actions by the 1st respondent to disturb applicant from exercising its right to prospect and search for minerals at Queensdale in Kadoma is hereby declared unlawful.
2. 1st respondent to... More
This is an opposed urgent chamber application in which the first and second applicants seek the following relief:
IT IS ORDERD THAT:
1. The respondent and all those claiming occupation through him be and are hereby ordered to restore vacant possession of the mining location being a position of Queensdale Farm measuring 9 hectares with the following co-ordinates: 199925; 7958476; B0200125; 7958914; C0200278; 7958822; D0200115; 7958045; DP0200045; 7958510 to the applicants upon service of this order.
2. Respondent shall pay costs of suit More
The first and second applicants have approached this court on an urgent basis seeking the relief for leave to sue the second respondent in terms of Section 126(1)(b) of the Insolvency Act [Chapter 6:07]. In particular, the Applicants’ prayer, according to the draft order reads as follows:
“1. Application for leave to sue the 2nd Respondent be and is hereby granted.
2. 1st Respondent shall pay costs of suit.” More
When this court application was filed it was erroneously filed as “case number HCA 43/09” meaning that it was an appeal case in the Appellate Division of the High Court. That was an error.
The correct position was that the applicant was seeking condonation for the late filing of his review application.
When the applicant appeared in court with his legal practitioner Miss N. Ndlovu on 14 October 2014 he withdrew the matter and tendered wasted costs. He was however ordered to pay costs on an attorney and client scale due to the manner he handled his case. More
This matter was filed as a chamber application for the appointment of a curator ad litem in terms of r 61(2)(b) of the High Court Rules, 2021. The specific order sought is as follows:
1. “The chamber application for the appointment of a curator ad litem is hereby granted.
2. Caleb Mutandwa is hereby appointed as curator ad litem for the two minor children namely Mutsawashe Mukondorongwe born on the 27th of August 2009 and Forbes Kunashe Mukondorongwe born on the 15th of May 2017 in the applicant’s intended application.,
3. The applicant and first respondent shall contribute an equal... More
