It was Appellant’s submission that the notice of appeal was filed and served on the Respondent on the 15th October, 2015. Respondent was required, in terms of the Rules to file his response within 14 days to wit by the 4th November, 2015. Respondent filed his response on the 6th November, 2015 i.e. 2 days out of time.
Respondent did not apply for condonation of late filing of the response neither did he give an explanation for the late filing. More
This is a chamber application for condonation of the late noting of appeal and extension of time within which to appeal purportedly in terms of r 38(1) of the Supreme Court Rules 2018.
The brief facts giving rise to this application maybe stated as follows:-
On 22 September 2016, the first respondent made a decision allowing the second respondent to effect developments on Stand 18962 Boundary Road, Eastlea Harare, whose location the applicant contends is a wetland. The decision was made under s 130(3) of the Environment Management Act [Chapter 20:27]. More
It has never ceased to amaze me how some of our citizens have developed this insatiable desire for litigation even in circumstances where clearly the odds are heavily stacked against them. This is one such a case and such conduct must be discouraged.
The facts which are common cause in this case can be summarised as follows: More
On 28 June 2012 the applicant filed the instant application. It was not until 7 November that this matter had to be argued as an opposed application in Court.
When the two counsels appeared before me to argue this matter, the first respondent’s counsel raised two points in limine which he hoped would dispose of the matter in the first respondent’s favour without dealing with the matter on merits. The 1st point in limine taken by counsel for the first respondent for the first time ever was to challenge the status of the deponent to the applicant’s founding affidavit. It... More
At the onset of oral argument in this Court respondent raised 2 (two) points in limine which applicant opposed.
The points shall be dealt with ad seriatim More
This is an appeal against an award quantifying damages to be paid to respondent. Respondent was employed by the appellant and was dismissed. The arbitrator ruled that the dismissal was unlawful and he should be reinstated. Appellant did not reinstate respondent and did not appeal against the award. Respondent approached the arbitrator for quantification of damages. In calculating damages the arbitrator stated;
“In my own opinion the period within which the complainant can be reasonably expected to find alternative employment is 12 months considering the unemployment level in the country.” More
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
