Plaintiff is in the business of exporting fresh (and therefore perishable) meat products from Zimbabwe to various foreign destinations. An efficient and reliable transport service provider withspecialised refrigerated containers is an indispensable enabler to plaintiff`s business. According to plaintiff in its declaration, defendant touted itself as imbued with the requisite attributes, equipment and expertise meeting plaintiff`s specialised transport needs. In particular, defendant held itself as possessing special refrigerated containers called “reefers”. Plaintiffalso described defendant as a provider of shipping services to and from Zimbabwe through the Durban, Maputo, Walvis Bay and Beira corridors. More
The applicant seeks the following contested order:
1. That the Note of Hand registered by the respondent on stand 237 Redcliff Township of Redcliff Estate, measuring 3 185 square meters and held under Deed of Transfer number 2190/2000 is hereby declared null and void and of no force or effect. More
On 2 September 2021 applicant (plaintiff then) issued summons against the respondent (defendant then) claiming:
1. An order compelling respondent to execute an agreement of sale in favour of applicant for stand 19376 Southerton Township.
2. That in the event that respondent does not within seven (7) days of the granting of the order, execute the agreement, applicant shall be deemed the owner of the stand.
3. Costs of suit.
Respondent entered appearance to defend the action, the result of which applicant then applied for summary judgment on the basis that respondent has no defence to the claim and that... More
The applicant filed this urgent chamber application to interdict the first and second respondent from entering into any property development agreement or any type of agreement involving a certain piece of land known as Swallowfieds of Johannesburg in the District of Hartley measuring 606,725 square meters held under Deed of Transfer 5257/99. More
The matter was set down for hearing on the 3rd of September, 2013. At the end of proceedings the parties were directed to file supplementary heads on an issue that had arisen in the course of proceedings. The parties having filed the supplementary heads of argument the file was referred back to me by the Registrar on the 1st September, 2014. The following is my judgement on the merits of appeal. More
The appellant was convicted of contravening s 49 (1) (a) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23]. He was ordered to pay a fine of $200 or in default to undergo 3 months’ imprisonment. In addition, 2 months’ imprisonment was wholly suspended for 5 years on condition of good behaviour. The appellant was also prohibited from driving class 2 vehicles for 2 years. More
1. This is an application for rescission of a default judgment granted by this court on
4 November 2020. The present application was filed on 17 November 2020. It is opposed.
2. In order for an application for this nature to succeed the following requirements have to be addressed.
(i) The length of the delay in applying for the rescission must be explained.
(ii) The reason for the default.
(iii) Prospects of success.
(iv) Balance of convenience.
Redstar Wholesalers v See Livingstone Mutomba SC 142/04 and cases cited therein.
3. It was argued on behalf of the applicant that the... More
This is a court application in which the applicant seeks the rescission of a judgment which was granted by consent in case number HC 8603/19 on 28 October 2019. More
On 26 April 2018, the plaintiff issued summons claiming $1,000, 000 (One million dollars) being delictual damages for alleged defamatory utterances made by the defendant on national television and to a nationally distributed newspaper publication; an unconditional apology to the plaintiff on the front page of the Daily News; removal of an alleged defamatory article from the Daily News Website and costs of suit. On 10 May 2018, the defendant through his legal practitioners made a request for further particulars. On 20 May 2018, the plaintiff responded to the request by stating that the particulars requested were not necessary for... More
This is an application for a declarator to the effect that the applicant and her employees, agents and invitees are entitled to remain in quiet, peaceful and undisturbed occupation and use of a certain piece of land known as Lot 5 of Lot 1 of Mazone in the Mutare District of Manicaland Province measuring 494 hectares in extent and the eviction of the first respondent and all those claiming occupation through him from the said property
The applicant claims that she has personal right and interest to occupy and use the disputed land. She claims occupation and use of the... More
This matter was set down as an application for the stay of attachment in execution of a default consent order which was granted by the Court in a matter where Applicant employer and Respondent employee were involved in a labour dispute where the Respondent had been dismissed from employment by the Applicant. More
On 1 September 2017 the first applicant was served with the first respondent’s notification of intention to withdraw the offer letter dated 30 August 2017.The applicants legal practitioners and respondents exchanged correspondence about the whole process of the first respondent’s intended withdrawal of offer letter but nothing came out of it. On 26 September 2017 the applicants got the notification of the withdrawal of the offer letter from the first respondent. On the same date an offer letter was granted to the second respondent. The offer letter granted to the second respondent concerned an area of 250 hectares. The remainder... More
The applicant herein is the registered owner of an immovable property located at 40 Josiah Tongogara Avenue, Harare. On 28 September 2004 in terms of a written agreement, the applicant let the premises to the first respondent for a period of one year with effect from 1 September 2004 to 31 August 2005. Certain differences have arisen between the parties and the applicant has approached this court on motion for an order for the eviction of the first respondent and all those claiming through it from the premises. The second respondent entered into a surety ship agreement with the applicant... More
In this application, the applicant seeks the following relief:-
1. A declaration that the refusal by the Magistrate to refer the issues raised by the applicant to the Supreme Court is wrong at law and consequently a breach of the applicant’s right to the protection of the law enshrined in section 18(1) of the former Constitution of Zimbabwe.
2. A declaration that the decision by the Attorney-General to proceed with the prosecution of the applicant more than five years after the alleged commission of the offence is a violation of the applicant’s right to the protection of the law under... More
