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
There are 2 applications before me, namely an application for condonation of the late filing of an application for rescission of judgment and the application for rescission of judgment. The parties agreed that both matters be heard at the same time.
Ideally the application for rescission of judgment should not have been filed without condonation of its late filing. Filing it at the same time as the application for condonation does not cure the defect. Now that it has been filed it still cannot be considered without its late filing being condoned. Therefore a dismissal of the application for condonation... More
Upon considering the record of proceedings, heads of argument and hearing oral submissions in this appeal we upheld the appeal and made the following order that
1. The appeal hereby partially succeeds.
2. The order of the court a quo is set aside and substituted as follows:
3. The defendants’ shall pay $7 710 to the plaintiff.
4. Each party shall bear its own costs.
These are the reasons for our disposition. More
This is an application for contempt of court. The applicant seeks an order couched in the following terms:
1. The respondent be and is hereby declared to be in contempt of court of High Court cases HC 3183/17 and HC 2031/18 and accordingly respondent is ordered a sum of $10 000.00 for contempt.
2. The respondent be ordered to immediately comply with court orders HC 3183/17 and HC 2031/18 and stop interfering with the applicant’s use, occupation and possession of the Mapari / Devuli Ranch.
3. The respondent is to pay costs of suit.
The application is opposed. More
This is an application for an interdict whose relief as set out in the draft order is in the following terms:
“1. The respondent be interdicted from entering or conducting any business or hunting activity at Mapari Ranch held under Deed of Transfer 5251/92.
2. Pursuant to the order in paragraph “1” above an order that applicant engages the Zimbabwe Republic Police or/and the Sheriff/Messenger of Court to enforce the order.
3. There be no order as to costs if the relief sought is not opposed.” More
It is a simple claim by the plaintiff. The plaintiff alleges it was mandated by the defendant to find a purchaser for the defendant’s property viz 30 Southerly Road, Hillside, Harare, technically referred to as stand 8394 Salisbury Township.
The basis of plaintiff’s claim was that it introduced one Rodgers Kativu to the defendant and to the property in question. It was the plaintiff’s averment in its declaration that as a direct result of its involvement, Rodgers Kativu offered to purchase the property for $60 000 and the defendant accepted this offer and that the property was subsequently disposed of... More
The plaintiff claims against the second and third defendants a sum of US$ 16 016 being the balance outstanding in respect of goods sold and delivered to the first defendant. The original amount claimed in the summons was US$66 801-39. More
In this matter the applicant seeks the following interim relief:
“Pending the confirmation or discharge of the order it shall operate as a temporary order having the effect of interdicting the respondents from holding public gatherings or meetings in Bulawayo, or anywhere in Zimbabwe, to consider or debate Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 2”. More
