This is an application for a declaratory relief where the applicant is seeking the following relief as per the draft order:
“IT IS DECLARED THAT:
a) Sections 22 and 23 of the Commercial Premises (Rent) Regulations, 1983 are ultra vires the Commercial Premises (Lease Control) Act [Chapter 14:04] and are thereby set aside.
b) Sections 22 and 23 of the Commercial Premises (Rent) Regulations, 1983 be and are hereby declared to be unconstitutional as they violate Sections 44, 56, 64, 71, and 86 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe No. 20 of 2013 and are accordingly invalid.
c) Respondents to pay... More
On 4 May 2017 I made a determination that the application before me was not urgent and struck it off the roll. These are the reasons for that decision. More
UCHENA JA: This is an appeal against the whole judgment of the High Court Bulawayo dated 23 July 2020, which dismissed the appellant’s appeal against the decision of the Magistrate’s Court granting the respondent summary judgment against him.
BACKGROUND FACTS
The appellant is the owner of a residential property known as number 18 Pingstone Road Kumalo within the City of Bulawayo. His property’s account number is 34452705. He, as is the norm, was billed for water and rates between August 2013 and November 2018. He did not pay his bills leading to an accumulated debt of US$4 601.50. He says... More
The appellant is a frequent visitor to this court. In the past few years he has filed and defended various claims in this court and in the lower courts.
The appellant noted an appeal against the judgment of the Magistrates’ Court sitting at Bulawayo on 21st November 2017.
The factual background in this matter is this. Sometime in October 2014 appellant handed over his house at 18 Pingstone Road, Kumalo, Bulawayo, to 1st respondent for management. The parties entered into “management agreement” in terms of which 1st respondent agreed to secure a tenant to occupy appellant’s property and pay rentals... More
This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court, dated 13 July 2017, dismissing an application for review of the determination of an arbitrator which had dismissed preliminary issues raised by the appellant relating, inter alia, to the legal status of the first respondent and its capacity to enforce a franchise agreement between the parties. More
This application is titled “court application for unlawful disposal of deceased’s immovable property.”The 1st, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th and 11threspondents neither filed opposing papers, nor participated in these proceedings.The 3rd and 4threspondents are cited in their official capacities because the implementation of the order sought by the applicant, if granted may require their services. This application is opposed by the 2nd respondent. The applicant seeks relief couched in the following terms:
i. The certificate issued by the Deputy Master under section 120 of the Administration of Estates Act be and is hereby set aside.
ii. The disposal of... More
[1] This is an application for condonation of late application for review and extension of time within which to file the application. It is opposed. The respondent sought to raise a preliminary issue but it was abandoned at the commencement of the hearing. More
Judgment in this matter was reserved on 2 April 2013, but when the Court sat down to write the judgment, it discovered that the initial disciplinary proceedings were incomplete to the extent that, as per page 17 of the record, they only started with question five suggesting that there were prior questions which were missing. As a result the Court mandated the Registrar to ask for the complete record of the initial proceedings so that, the Court could decide whether or not the Appellant was dismissed in regular circumstances. More
This is an application for bail pending trial. On 11 March 2011 the applicant was indicted by the magistrate sitting at Harare for trial on 28 March 2011 at the High Court. As he was mandated to do by s 66 (2) of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act [Cap 9:07], the indicting magistrate committed him to prison pending trial. The same provision allows the applicant to seek bail if he so desires, hence the present application. More
This is an appeal against a judgment of a Magistrate, refusing bail in respect of the three appellants. The appellants pray that the judgment of the court a quo be set aside and substituted with an order that they be admitted to bail with appropriate conditions. More
The background of the matter is that Old Mutual sued the applicant, Elton Mtisi, alongside Puzey and Payne (Pvt) Ltd, who was the first defendant and Charles Nhamo Nyambuya who was the third defendant for payment of US$334 125,81 as rent arrears following the cancellation of the lease agreement between Old Mutual and the defendants. More
At the onset of oral argument in this Court respondent raised points in limine which appellant. The points shall be dealt with ad seriatim.
That the appeal is improperly before the Court:
The point is expatiated in respondent’s opposing affidavit thus;
“4.1 I am advised that the present Appeal is improperly before the Court and violating Section 101 of the Labour Act as amended. The Appeal ought to have been filed before the Labour Officer/Designated Agent in terms of the Labour Amendment and not the Labour Court within provided statutory timelines. More
On 13 July 2017, I dismissed the application by the applicant for the stay of execution pending the finalisation of case number HC 5724/17 between the same parties. The reasons for my decision are as follows:
On 29 November 2011, the first respondent obtained a default judgement against the applicant and two others for the payment of a sum of USD47 130.55 and interest on a sum of USD44 522.93 at the rate of 30% per annum calculated from 31 March 2011 to the date of payment in full. More
