The applicant seeks a declaratur that the first and second respondents’ failure to furnish the applicant with reasons for their decisions is unlawful and wrongful, that the applicant’s discharge from the police service is accordingly set aside, that the respondents are ordered to reinstate the applicant into the police service forthwith and that the respondents are ordered to pay costs of suit on a punitive scale. More
This is an application for an order that the alleged refusal or failure of the respondents to furnish the applicant with reasons for her discharge be declared to be unlawful and for the setting aside of the discharge of the applicant from the Zimbabwe Republic Police consequent upon the finding, as prayed for, that the discharge is wrongful and unlawful. The applicant also seeks costs against the respondents on the attorney-client scale. The application is opposed by the first respondent. More
This is a court application for review of the respondents’ decision to discharge the applicant from the Police Service as being unfit for Police Duties as he was found to be a stammer and had serious communication problems. More
The applicant is seeking an order in the following terms:
“1. The 1st and 2nd respondents’ failure to furnish the applicant with reasons for their decisions is unlawful and wrongful.
2. The applicant’s discharge from the police service is accordingly set aside.
3. The respondents are ordered to reinstate the applicant into the police service forthwith.
4. The respondents are ordered to pay costs of suit on a punitive scale.” More
This judgment is to be read together with the judgment HH 417-22 which was delivered on 28 June 2022 dealing with a point in limine raised by the respondent to effect that the application ought to be dismissed because there are material disputes of fact not capable of resolution. In that judgment, I set out the facts on which this application is based. It was necessary to do so because the court could not have properly determined whether the applicant’s case was comprised of irresolvable material disputes of facts without setting out the facts of the case and considering them.... More
On the turn, I granted an order finding the respondents in contempt of an order of this court and committed the second and third respondents to prison and there to be held until the order of this court, granted on 13 February 2008 is complied with or set aside, whichever occurs sooner. The committal of the second and third respondents was suspended for four days from the date of service of the order upon each of them to give them an opportunity to purge their contempt. More
The appellant and the first respondent have engaged in a litany of disputes in the court a quo, all related to their respective entitlements to the mining claims that they operate on. The two mining claims are situate in Insiza District, Matebeleland South and are adjacent to each other. The appellant is the holder of mining claims known as Tigress, while the first respondent has been conducting mining operations on claims known as Lion West 25. More
This is an appeal against the decision of the Magistrate Court sitting at Harare in which the court dismissed the appellant’s claim and upheld the counter-claim by the respondent.
The facts of the case are that on 11 June 2014 the appellant and the respondent entered into an agreement of sale of land. This was during the multi-currency era. The property was sold in United States dollars. The agreed purchase price was US$60 000.00. The agreed terms of payment were that the respondent was to pay the appellant a deposit of US$18 000.00 followed by monthly instalments of US$691.00 for... More
This is a court application for a declaratur in terms of section 68 (1) and (3) of the Companies and Other Business Entities Act [Chapter 24:31] (the Act) as read with section 14 of the High Court Act [Chapter 7:06] in which the applicant seeks an order against the 1st respondent in the following terms;
“1. The 1st Respondent be and is hereby declared personally liable without limitation for
payment of the debt owed by the 2nd Respondent to the Applicant.
2. That the 1st Respondent pays the Applicant the sum of US$106 207-51 [One Hundred and Six Thousand Two... More
The bare bones of the matter are these: The respondent issued summons against the applicant on 30 November, 2010 in case number HC 8728/10, claiming $6 369-35. The applicant entered appearance to defend via its erstwhile legal practitioners Messrs Bruce Mujeyi Manokore Attorneys. The applicant through its then legal practitioners was served with a notice to plead on 26 January, 2011. The applicant did not enter a plea and the respondent applied for default judgment on 2 March, 2011. The order was duly granted on 31 March, 2011 and issued on 28 April, 2011. More
This is an application for rescission of a default judgment issued on 28 April 2011. The back ground is that respondent issued summons on 30 November 2010 in Case No. HC 8728/10 against applicant claiming the sum of $6 369.35 together with interest at the prescribed rate from July 2010 to date of payment in full. More
On 12 January 2023, I delivered an order in favour of the applicant validating the title deed issued under Deed of Transfer No. 4106/2010. The first and fifth respondents requested for the reasons of the order. Thus, this judgment is an exploration of the reasons for the 12 January order. More
At the conclusion of submissions by counsel, the Court delivered a unanimous ex-tempore judgment. Counsel for the first respondent has now requested written reasons for the ex-tempore judgment.
2. It was couched as follows:
“We hereby present the unanimous decision of the court.
(a) This is an appeal against the whole judgment of the High Court (the court a quo), in which it struck off the roll an urgent application seeking to interdict the respondent from evicting the appellant from a certain farm known as the Remainder of West Hay Sabona Bon without a court order.
(b) The court a... More
The eighty-nine appellants, who are charged with participating in a gathering with intent to promote public violence, breaches of the peace, or bigotry as defined More
This is an urgent chamber application in which the interim relief sought is that 1st respondent be barred and interdicted from evicting the applicant from a certain farm known as “the remainder of Westhey, Sabonabon Estate, Kadoma arbitrarily without a court order. As a final order, it is prayed that the provisional order be confirmed with respondents paying costs. More
