DUBE J: This is an application for cancellation of a title deed issued pursuant to a default judgment which has since been rescinded. Albeit the 1st respondent not having opposed the application for rescission, still insists that title remains in his name pending litigation in the main, to determine to whom ownership should lawfully vest. More
Appellant, appeared before the Regional Magistrate Court, Kadoma on two occasions seeking bail pending trial. He had been apprehended on two charges of armed robbery and possession of articles used in the commission of an offence, in contravention of ss126 and 140 of the Criminal Law Codification and Reform Act [Chapter,9:23], respectively. Of note, on his initial remand of the 2nd of May 2024, bail was opposed by the State, on the faith of the request of remand form and the investigating officer’s affidavit. When the appellant reappeared on the 8th of May 2024, the State was in possession of... More
This is an appeal against a judgement of the Magistrate court sitting at Harare in which the appellant’s claim for the eviction of respondent from stand 3357 New Mabvuku also known as 44 Mubanga Street New Mabvuku Harare was dismissed by the court a quo. More
The present dispute is an off-shoot of the main matter between the parties and comes as a result of the judgement I delivered in Eric Murowa v Mabaya & Sons Transport & General Contractors CC & Another HMA 61-22. The following background facts suffice by way of recap. The plaintiff instituted a claim for the recovery of the sum of ZAR 1 830 272 in delictual damages arising from injuries he sustained in a motor vehicle collision. More
The applicant filed an urgent chamber application for attachment of property to confirm jurisdiction. I granted the order on 29 October 2021.
The first respondent has anticipated the return date and seeks that the provisional order granted on 29 October 2021 be discharged with costs on an attorney client scale.
The application for attachment of property to confirm jurisdiction is based on the following basis extracted from the founding affidavit of applicant.
The applicant is employed by MB Transport as a driver. On 20 November 2020 at the 220 kilometer peg along the Masvingo Beitbridge Road second respondent who was... More
At the conclusion of the trial in this matter, and after the two defendants virtually abandoned their defences to the plaintiffs’ claims, I entered judgment in favour of the plaintiffs and said the reasons for doing so would follow. These are they. More
The OK Grand Challenge Jackpot promotion has become an exciting annual national event to many Zimbabweans as it affords many lucky winners a rare opportunity to win various prices ranging from motor vehicles, residential stands and an assortment of other items. It is an event which is aggressively advertised both in the print and electronic media. More
This is a chamber application for an order for condonation of late filing of an application for leave to appeal made in terms of r 35(1) of the Constitutional Court Rules, 2016 (“the Rules”). More
This is an appeal against the whole judgment of the High Court (“the court a quo”) handed down on 7 July 2022 in which it declined to assume jurisdiction in respect of an application filed by the appellant for the review of the recommendations of the second, third and fourth respondents in accordance with which the first respondent removed her from the office of Judge of the High Court. More
This is an application brought in terms of s 167 (2) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe, 2013 (“the Constitution”). The applicant seeks a declarator that the President failed to fulfil a constitutional obligation within the contemplation of the Constitution when he removed the applicant from the office of Judge of the High Court on 17 June 2021. The removal was pursuant to what the applicant considers was an invalid and unlawful recommendation by a tribunal appointed by the President to look into the question of her removal from office. The applicant further seeks, as consequential relief, an order setting aside... More
This is an appeal against the whole judgment of the High Court (the court a quo)
in which it dismissed the appellant`s urgent chamber application wherein she sought an interdict to prevent the first respondent (the President) from establishing a Tribunal in terms of s 187 (3) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe, 2013 (‘the Constitution’). More
[1] This is an appeal against the whole judgment of the High Court (the ‘court a quo’) wherein the court granted a provisional order in an urgent chamber application made by the respondent. The court a quo ordered that a motor vehicle in the possession of the appellant be placed under judicial attachment pending the return day of the provisional order. The court further interdicted both the appellant and the respondent from using the motor vehicle pending the determination of the matter. More
The applicant was a judge of the High Court until the 17 June 2021 when she was removed from office by the 1st respondent in terms of s 187(7) as read with s 187(8) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (No 20) Act 2013 [ hereinafter the Constitution].
The respondents in this matter are the President of the Republic of Zimbabwe cited in his official capacity (1st respondent); Simbi Veke Mubako [Chairperson of the Tribunal which enquired into the question of applicant’s removal] (2nd respondent); Charles Warara [member of the Tribunal] (3rd respondent); Yvonne Masvora [member of Tribunal] (4th respondent);... More
The appellant was employed as a data capturing clerk by the respondent in July 2005. She rose through the ranks to the position of senior accounts clerk. More
This is an application brought through the urgent chamber book wherein the applicant seeks an interim interdict temporarily halting the referral of the question of her removal as judge of the High Court to the 1st respondent in terms of s187(3) of the Constitution. In a nutshell the applicant’s position is that the contemplated referral is not only deeply flawed procedurally but also that if allowed to stand it will create a dangerous precedent in that it poses a serious threat to the independence of the judiciary. More
