This is an application for condonation of late noting of an appeal in terms of r 35 of the Constitutional Court Rules 2016. The application is rather convoluted, disjointed and incoherent. It resembles a charade for an attempt by a litigious self-actor to file a Constitutional Chamber Application without any appreciation of the law, rules and procedures of this Court. More
This is a bail application lodged by the applicant after his first application was refused by this court. The first application was refused on the 3 November 2022. The applicant, who is jointly charged with other persons, now seeks bail based on changed circumstances. The applicant and his co-accused are charged with one count of robbery as defined in section 126 (b) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23] (“the Criminal Code)”. More
The plaintiff and defendant were married in terms of the Marriages Act [Cap 5:11] on 14 January 2005 at HARARE. Their marriage was blessed with one child born on 25 November 2008. More
The applicant and the 2nd respondent signed an agreement of sale wherein the applicant purchased a certain piece of land in extent 4 000 square metres identified on the plan by number 73 situated along Circular Drive, Matsheumhlophe, Bulawayo. According to the agreement the 2nd respondent represented by one Hendrik Stephanus Rootman is the seller while the purchaser is indicated as Michael FiyadoMathanda. This agreement was signed on the 10th of April 2000. MrRootman is now deceased. The property was subject to a final survey. There were disputes regarding the survey between the property owners and the land surveyors. More
This is a chamber application for leave to appeal to the Constitutional Court (“the Court”) against a decision of the Supreme Court (“the court a quo”). The application is made in terms of r 32(2) of the Constitutional Court Rules S.I. 61/2016 (“the Rules”). More
This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court dismissing the applicant’s urgent application for a mandamus for the release of the appellant’s passport held by the first respondent as security for his attendance at court. More
This is an application for leave to appeal against a decision of the Supreme Court handed down on 25 November 2021. Holding that there was no proper appeal before it, the Supreme Court struck from its roll the appeal that the applicant had noted against a judgment of the High Court. Using its review powers, the Supreme Court proceeded to set aside the proceedings of the High Court. In doing so, it held that the High Court did not have the requisite jurisdiction to determine the matter as it did or at all. More
This is a Constitutional Court Application in terms of s 85 (1) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe (the Constitution). The applicant’s contention is that an award of costs made against him in litigation in the High Court of Zimbabwe infringes his rights as enshrined in s 69 (4) of the Constitution. More
MUNANGATI-MANONGWA J had occasion to deal with an exception which the respondent raised in the matter of Ignatius Masamba and Secretary – Judicial Service Commission. The issue which related totheexception was heard and conclusively decided under case number HH 978-15. Both parties made submissions at the hearing of the exception. Judgment was entered in the respondent’s favour. More
These were two opposed applications which were heard before me in the opposed roll for the 11th July, 2018.
With the concurrence of the applicant these two matters were heard at the same time as the nature of the relief so sought by the applicant was similar in both instances.
Case No. HC 6164/17
In case number HC 6164/17 the applicant brought a court application in which he cited The Secretary of the Judicial Service Commission as the respondent.
The applicant made a court application in which he referred to as a:
“Court application for a mandatory injuction to release... More
The papers filed as constituting this chamber application typify what has been colloquially referred to as a dog’s breakfast both as to content and form. One has to painstakingly read throughthe papers several timesto try and make head or tail of what the applicant’s cause of action is. I have read through the founding affidavit of the applicant several times as it is the document on which a judge can hopefully make out what the cause of action is. The founding affidavit is confusing and deals with unrelated or irrelevant matters to the relief sought. I will try and be... More
The applicant, (Ignatius), is a beneficiary of the land reform process, having signed with the Government a 99 year lease agreement. Ignatius filed this court application, challenging the intention to cancel the lease by the second respondent, (the Minister). The application was initially filed without the second respondent, (Marian), who was joined to these proceedings as a party through the order of this court on 23 November 2022 under case number HC 6122/22. More
This is an appeal against the refusal of bail (pending trial) in the Magistrates’ Court in terms of section 121 of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act [Chapter 9:07] More
This is an application referred to by the applicant as “Court Application for the Second Revival of Temporary Variation of Bail Conditions in B1836/19: HH 735/19” being made in terms of s126 (1) of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act [Chapter 9:07] (the Act). The application was initially not opposed. On 3 May 2021, I directed that the parties file supplementary heads of argument on whether or not this court has jurisdiction to determine the application. More
This is an unopposed claim for damages. After I had heard submissions I reserved judgment in order to consider the submissions made by the Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff is a farmer by occupation. He carries on his farming operations at Subdivision 38 of Exwick Farm in Chegutu. In June 2002 the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into an agreement in terms of which the Plaintiff was to pay to the defendant a sum of US$217 655.80 for electricity to be connected to his farm. In terms of the same agreement the Defendant was obliged to connect, and did connect, electricity to... More
