The applicant applies for a declaratur and mandamus orders. Its draft order reads as follows:
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1. The first, second and third respondents’ failure to establish a public primary school in Tynwald South Township, Harare is hereby declared to violate the rights of children from low-income households in Tynwald South, specifically their rights to education, the best interests of the child, to dignity, to administrative justice, and to equality and non- discrimination, as protected in sections 75, 81, 68 and 56 of the Constitution.
2. The first respondent shall, with immediate effect, redirect the Beer Levy funds... More
The applicant and the first respondent entered into a lessor-lessee relationship respectively. They, on 16 July 1999, signed a notarial agreement of lease [“the lease”]
The applicant let, and the first respondent hired, a certain portion of the property known as Harare Sport Club [“the property”]. This is situated in the District of Harare formerly Salisbury. More
This is a court application wherein the applicants seek an order declaring the confirmation of sale by first respondent to the second respondent of a certain piece of land unlawful and set aside. As consequential relief to the declaration, applicants pray for an order compelling the first respondent to uplift the caveat placed on the property by him in favour of second respondent. More
The first respondent filed summons against the applicant and the second respondent on 12 November 2021 jointly and severally one paying the other to be absolved claiming for:
(i) Damages in the sum of US$70 000 or equivalent in local currency at the prevailing official rate at the time of payment.
(ii) Interest thereon at 10% per annum from the date of summons to the date of final payment.
(iii) Costs of suit.
The applicant was served with the summons on 20 November 2021. Applicant filed its notice of appearance to defend and request for further particulars on 24 November... More
The Attorney-General gave notice in terms of s 35 of the High Court Act, [Cap 7:06] that he did not support the conviction of all four appellants in this matter. The record shows that the appeal had previously been set down for hearing on 5 May 2011. It could not be heard because the record of proceedings, i.e. the original and the transcribed copies were unintelligible. It appears that a directive was given at that point to the relevant authorities to rectify the record in order to afford the appellants an opportunity to have their appeal dealt with on the... More
This is an application for a spoliation order and an interdict in which second applicant claims that he and his family was summarily evicted from the remainder of Manda Estate A by a mob that was acting at the behest of second respondent. Subsequent to hearing the application I granted the application for spoliation only and indicated that my reasons would be furnished later. These are they. More
I dismissed this application for condonation of late noting of an appeal. The applicant has requested for the reasons for the purposes of an appeal. More
The applicant seeks an order evicting first respondent from the premises known as House No. 50 Nzungu Street, Zengeza 1, Chitungwiza (the property). More
This is an application for bail pending appeal. On 15th July 2020 the applicant was convicted by the Regional Court sitting at Beitbridge on a charge of rape as defined in section 65 (1) of the Criminal Law Codification and Reform Act (Chapter 9:23). The applicant was sentenced to 18 years imprisonment of which 3 years was suspended for 5 years on condition of future good behaviour.
Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the applicant noted an appeal against both conviction and sentence. In this application for bail pending appeal the applicant contends that his appeal carries bright prospects of... More
The appellant was dismissed from the respondent’s employ following disciplinary proceedings. His internal appeal failed. He was aggrieved and has therefore appealed that decision to this Court. More
Applicant seeks an order directing that the matter between the applicant and the first respondent in HC 1982/05 be re-opened to allow the applicant lead fresh evidence. He also seeks costs against the first respondent. More
The plaintiff issued summons against the three defendants seeking the following relief;
“(a) An order declaring the Sale Agreement between the 1st defendant and the 2nd defendant
in respect of the property described in the plaintiff’s declaration to be null and void.
(b) An order declaring the sale agreement between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant
in respect of the property described in the plaintiff’s declaration to be valid and
binding.
(c) An order compelling the 1st defendant to within seven (7) days of being served with this order and against payment by the plaintiff of the balance of the... More
1. This chamber application was placed before me on a certificate of urgency on 24 May 2021. I formulated the view that the application was not urgent and removed it from the roll. The applicant requested audience with the court resulting in the matter being set down for the purposes of hearing argument on the question of urgency.
2. At the hearing of the matter, the respondent challenged the authority of the court to deal with the application on the basis that the court has already made a decision on urgency and is functus officio on the question of urgency.... More
This matter came by way of referral from the taxing officerin terms of Rule 75(25) of the High Court Rules 2021 (the rules),on 23 November 2021. It was pursuant to a disagreement between the parties over the inclusion of certain items in the plaintiff’s bill of costs that was placed before the taxing officer for taxation. The parties are embroiled in an ownership dispute concerning a church in the suburb of Hatcliffe, Harare. The matter was ripe for trial that was set to commence before me on 12 July 2021. More
This is an appeal against an arbitral award handed down on 30 October 2014, in terms of which it was ruled that the respondent’s (then claimant) representative had no locus standito represent the respondent before the arbitrator. More
