The three applicants in this urgent chamber application applied for a provisional order the terms of the interim relief of which reads as follows- Interim Relief.
That pending the confirmation or discharge of this Provisional Order the applicants are granted the following relief:
1) That first to third respondents is (sic) directed to stop advertising for sale of any stands on a certain piece of land in Hartely called Swallowfield of Johannesburg measuring 127,6238 hectares held under deed of transfer number DT 5157/99.
2) The first to third respondents be directed to refrain from collecting sale proceeds of stands. More
This is an application for quantification of damages. The application which has been filed in terms of Rule 14 of the Labour Court Rules, 2017 is filed pursuant to a court order issued in this court under reference LC/H/444/22 on 7th July,2022. In the order the court directed as follows;
“1. The application for review be and is hereby granted.
2. The 2nd Respondent’s Ruling dated 28 January 2022 purporting to convict and dismiss 1st Applicant from employ of the 1st Respondent be and is hereby set aside.
3. The 2nd Respondent’s Ruling dated 28th January 2022 purporting to convict... More
This is an application for bail pending trial. The applicants allege that there are changed circumstances, which if properly considered, would entitle them to bail pending trial. On the 10th February 2019 an application for bail pending trial was brought before me by the applicants and their co-accused. I declined the application and gave my reasons in judgment HB-04-19. I am informed that an appeal has been lodged to the Supreme Court against that judgment. More
This is an application for absolution from the instance.
Tendai Madungwe (hereinafter called the deceased) died from injuries sustained in a bus accident that occurred at the 257 kilometer peg along Harare Chirundu Road. She is at the centre of this trial. First Plaintiff is deceased’s husband while second to sixth Plaintiff are children born of deceased and first Plaintiff. Defendant is a bus company which owns the bus which was involved in an accident that resulted in deceased’s death.
Two issues were referred for trial namely:
1. Whether or not defendant’s driver negligently caused the accident
2. Whether or... More
I dealt with this matter in chambers and dismissed the application on 30th of September 2015. The reason was that the appeal had no prospects of success.
Applicant has requested for detailed reasons and here are they.
The applicant filed a notice of appeal which espoused the following grounds.
1. It is respectfully submitted that applicant filed his appeal within the stipulated regulatory period, however prison authorities responsible for the conveying of the papers delayed the process. There are no issues with the reasons for the delay.
2. It is respectfully submitted that applicant’s conviction in the court a quo... More
The appellant, a seventy-year old man, was convicted of rape as defined in s 65(1) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act, [Cap 9:23] after a trial. He was sentenced to 15 years imprisonment of which 7years were suspended on conditions of good behaviour. The appellant was convicted on the following facts found to have been proved in the court a quo. The complainant was aged 11 years at the time of the alleged offence. She was staying with the appellant who is married to her aunt. On an unknown date in December 1998 her aunt left her together... More
This is an application for the confirmation of a provisional order granted by this court on 4May 2022 for the provisional liquidation of the first respondent MANGENJE BROTHERS (PRIVATE) LTD. More
This is an application in terms of s 5(1)(b)(iii) of the Insolvency Act [Chapter 6:07], (hereinafter called “the Act”) for the liquidation of the first respondent on the basis that it is just and equitable to wind it up. The applicant avers that there is a deadlock between its members and directors. In addition, it is submitted that the forth respondent is dissipating the company’s assets, as well as selling assets in its name, thereby creating obligations which the company is unable to fulfill. It has been brought by the executor of the estate of the late Isaiah Mudzengi, who... More
This application was filed in terms of section 5(1)(b)(iii) of the Insolvency Act [Chapter 6:07] (“the Act”), for the liquidation of Greynut Investments (Pvt) Ltd (“the first respondent”) on the basis that it is just and equitable to wind it up. It was brought by the executor of the estate of the late Isaiah Mudzengi, who held 70% shares in the first respondent. The application is opposed by the fourth and fifth respondents. In her opposition, the fourth respondent states that she the Chief Executive Officer and co-director of the first respondent, and that she has a shareholding of 30%.... More
The applicant was married to the late Edward Matambanadzo Chikudza in terms of the Marriages Act, [Cap 5:11]. The late Edward M Chikudza died intestate on 15 February 2008. His estate was duly registered in terms of the Administration of Estates Act [Cap 6:01] as DR309/08. More
On 25 February 2022, this Court issued an Order in favour of the first Respondent to the effect that:
1 “Provisional sentence in the sum of US$295,102-00 be and is hereby granted
2 Defendant shall pay interest on the sum of US$295,102-00 at the prescribed rate reckoned
from 17 April 2021 to date of payment in full.
3 Defendant shall pay collection commission in terms of the Law Society of Zimbabwe
By Laws.”
It is this order that eventually gave rise to the current application. Applicant has approached this Court on an urgent basis seeking the following:
“TERMS OF FINAL... More
MABHIKWA J: The applicant filed anapplication for condonation forlate filing of an application for review in terms of Order 3 Rule 359 of the High Court Rules, 1971. She sought the relief that it be ordered that;
“1. The application for condonation of the late noting of an application for review be and is hereby granted.
2. The applicant be and is hereby granted leave to file the application for review of the proceedings in DRGK 92/10 within ten (10) days of this order.
3. The 2nd to 3rd respondents are to pay the costs of this application on a... More
The plaintiff and the defendant are husband and wife. They married on 7 June 2002 in terms of the Marriages Act [Cap 5:11]. The parties have one minor child Tamika Madalitso Kasambara (born 17 September 2006). The plaintiff has instituted these proceedings seeking a decree of divorce, custody of the minor child and division of their movable and immovable property. At a Pre- Trial Conference before MAKONI J the parties agreed that their marriage had irretrievably broken down. They also entered into a deed of settlement wherein they agreed on the issue of custody and access to the minor child... More
This is an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court in terms of section 92 F (2) of the Labour Act (Chapter 28:01).
Applicant’s prospective grounds of appeal are couched as follows;
1. The court a quo erred in concluding that the applicant made an admission during the hearing proceedings that the figures were not exact where in actual fact a query was raised disputing the correctness of the minutes.
2. The court a quo erred in making a decision that the evidence was sufficient whereas the evidence which was relied upon was drawn from CCTV which was... More
