This is an application for bail pending trial. Applicant is facing a charge of unlawful possession of raw ivory in contravention of Section 82(1) of the Parks and Wildlife (General Regulations 362/1990) as read with section 128 (b) of the Parks and Wildlife Act(Chapter 20:14). The applicant denies the charges and avers that he is a proper candidate for bail. The State opposes this application.
Factual Background
The State alleges that on the 15th November 2021 at Mlibizi Turnoff, Binga, the applicant and his co-accused were found in possession of one piece of raw elephant tusk without a permit, after... More
The plaintiff issued a summons for Provisional Sentence on a liquid document claiming from the defendant an amount of US$10 500-00. The plaintiff averred that its claim is based on a letter dated 27 July 2009 executed by the defendant’s accountant acknowledging the debt due. The letter states that an amount of US$15 000-00 is payable to the plaintiff. The letter also states “We wish to pay yourselves $500-00 .... weekly or US$2 000-00 a month.” More
This is an appeal against the decision of Respondent’s Disciplinary Committee, in terms of which Appellant was found guilty of misconduct and dismissed from employment. More
Eduardo Couture, made the following seminal remarks in an article published in (1950) 25 Tulane Law Review at 7 which the full bench of the Supreme Court in MDC&AnorvChinamasa&Anor NNO 2001(1) ZLR 69(S) 79A-C cited with approval: More
1. This is an urgent application for an interim interdict pending a decision in a hearing on the return date. The applicant seeks a provisional order couched in the following terms:
Terms of the final order sought
That you show cause to this Honourable Court if any, why a final order should not be made in the following terms:
i. Respondent and its members, associates and nominees be and (sic) hereby interdicted from interrupting and disrupting the applicant’s celebration of “Isithembiso” ceremony for all time to come without an order of a competent court.
ii. Respondent to pay the costs. More
The respondent was employed by the appellant as a Housing Officer. He was indicted for a disciplinary hearing on 11 November 2017 before the appellant’s Disciplinary Committee. He was charged with ‘committing any act or conduct inconsistent with the fulfilment of the express or implied conditions of the contract of employment’ in terms of clause 8(d) of Statutory Instrument 87/2017, specifically that he unilaterally and unlawfully exempted some council tenants from paying rentals which resulted in the appellant losing revenue. More
This is an appeal against the whole judgment of the High Court sitting at Bulawayo. The judgment upheld the respondent’s court application for the registration of an arbitral award against the appellant in terms of the Arbitration Act [Chapter7:15] (UNCITRAL) Model Law Schedule (Section 2) (Model Law). More
This matter came as an urgent chamber application. In a 66 page application, applicant in short/simpler terms averred that it and 1st respondent entered into a Joint Venture Agreement (J.V.A.) for the purpose of operating a safari business among other objectives.
Applicant further averred that first respondent breached the terms of the Joint Venture Agreement and was given due written notice of intention to terminate the agreement should it (respondent) fail, refuse or neglect to remedy the breach. The breach was not remedied and the Joint Venture Agreement was terminated. Despite termination, 1st respondent allegedly continued to be in occupation... More
The application before the court is one for a declaratur initiated under s85 (1) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe. The applicant challenges the constitutional validity of the Land Commission (Gazetted Land) (Disposal In Lieu of Compensation) Regulations, 2020 (S.I. 62 of 2020) (hereinafter referred to as the regulations). The regulations were promulgated by the first respondent on 13 March 2020 in terms of s 21 as read with s 17 of the Land Commission Act (the Act). The applicant argues that the regulations violate his right to agricultural land, his right to property, his right to administrative justice and the... More
TAKUVA J: The applicants have approached this court on a certificate of urgency seeking the following interim relief.
Final order sought
That you show cause why a final order should not be made in the following terms:
1. The provisional order be and is hereby confirmed.
2. That 1st respondent’s failure to ensure an adequate and consistent supply of clean and safe water to Mkoba be and is hereby declared to be a violation of the applicant’s right to clean safe and portable water protected under section 77(a) of the Constitution.
3. That the 2nd and 3rd respondents’ failure to... More
The plaintiff herein issued summons against the two defendants out of this court on 13 April 2010. The plaintiff claim as endorsed on the face of the summons was for relief as follows:
a) Delivery to the plaintiff of the equipment described in Annexure ‘A’ to the plaintiff’s Declaration;
b) alternatively payment of the sum of US $34 959.42
c) Interest thereon at the prescribed rate from date of judgment to date of final payment; and
d) Costs of suit. More
On 20 March 2021 the Applicant brought an urgent chamber application seeking the following:
TERMS OF FINAL ORDER SOUGHT
That you show cause to this Honourable Court why a final order should not be made in the following terms that:-
1. The provisional order be and is hereby confirmed.
2. Respondent be and is hereby interdicted from interfering with Applicant’s guardianship rights in respect of Applicant’s biological children.
INTERIM RELIEF SOUGHT
Pending the Return Day, the Applicant is granted the following relief:-
“1. Respondent is interdicted from sending KK born on 3rd April 2008 (the child) to Chemhanza Secondary School.” More
This judgment pertains to two action matters that were consolidated as they involved the same property and virtually the same parties. The plaintiffs are husband and wife. The first plaintiff is the wife whilst the second plaintiff is the husband. The first plaintiff is the registered owner of an immovable property being Subdivision B of Subdivision D of Subdivision A of Lot 4 of Lot A of Colne Valley of Rietfontein, also known as no. 47 Addington Lane, Ballantyne Park, Harare. More
The first respondent filed an urgent chamber application for a spoliation order in the High Court on 27 August 2021. The basis of the application was that the appellants had unlawfully deprived it of possession of part of a certain piece of land being Lot 4 Devuli Ranch (the land), by hiring thugs to violently and forcefully beat up the first respondent’s employees. It was the first respondent’s case that the land was initially owned by the appellant under Deed of Transfer 5251/92 but the land was compulsorily acquired by the State on 29 September 2005. More
Respondent has raised a point in limine to the effect that Appellant has approached this Court with dirty hands it having not complied with the award nor made an application in terms of Section 92E (3) of the Labour Act. More
