Welcome to Midlands State University Library

Court Judgements



Browse all Court Judgements
After hearing both counsel and having read the documents filed of record the court dismissed the appeal on the basis of a point in limine that was raised. The reasons were read in court and these are the written reasons for the dismissal of the appeal. More

After hearing submissions in argument from both legal practitioners I dismissed this application with costs on the ordinary scale and indicated that my written reasons would follow in due course. These are they. On 27 September 2005 the applicant and the 1st respondent represented by the second respondent concluded on agreement of sale of an immovable property known as Stand 195 Monavale Township measuring 36953 square metres for a purchase price of seven billion dollars ($7 000 000 000 .00) More

This is an application brought under s 24(1) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe (hereinafter “the Constitution”) on the basis that the applicant’s rights enshrined in ss 18(1) and 18(1a) have been contravened. More

Rule 25 of the Rules of this Court, Statutory Instrument 150 of 2017 (The Rules) provides for representation of parties, assumption and renunciation of agency More

The plaintiff issued summons on 24 May 2011 against the three defendants seeking defamation damages in the sum of US$50 000-00, interest and costs. The first defendant, a senior reporter, wrote the article in issue in the H-Metro tabloid of 3 March 2011. The second defendant was his editor while the third printed and published the article. More

Afterdisposed of this application which was set down through the urgent chamber bookon 12 June, 2018 the applicant’s legal practitioners addressed a letter to the High Court Registrar on 14 June, 2018. The letter reads, in part, as follows: “The application was dismissed and the reasons were given ex tempore in chambers. We kindly request that we be furnished with the reasons on an urgent basis….. We have instructions to appeal his Lordship’s decision….” More

This is an application to declare null and void an appeal noted to this court by the respondent under Civ App 89/07. In the alternative, the appellant seeks an order that the appeal be declared to have lapsed. More

The applicant has approached this court seeking the following relief: "1. The agreement concluded between the deceased, the late Joseph Muchapondwa and the first respondent on 13 February 2009 be hereby confirmed. 2. Terms of the final order be effected to the point that the execution of the judgment granted in the Magistrate Court Case No 11317/05 be and is hereby set aside because the order was complied with when deceased bought off the first respondent. 3. That there be no order as to costs(unless either party opposes this application in which case the opposing party shall pay the costs... More

This court handed down its ruling in which it dismissed an application for discharge at the close of the state case brought by the applicant together with the 2nd to the 9th respondents herein but who were co-applicants in that application. On 29 October 2019, the applicant filed an application for the Judge’s recusal in the matter. This court dismissed the application on 14 January 2020. More

The trial in this matter commenced 6 June 2018. After the closure of the state case ion 14 March 2019, the nine (9) accused applied for their discharge in terms of section 198 (3) of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act [Chapter 9:07]. On 13 May 2019, the ruling, which dismissed the application was handed down in their presence. More

JEFFERSON BANDA AND CHRISTINE MUPATSI AND GILBERT KARIKUIMBA AND MICHAEL RUPANGA AND JOSEPH TAKAVINGOFA AND BRIDGETTE DULANI AND MICHAEL GEZI AND JACKY HETYA AND LANGTON NYEVE AND CONRAD MUZVURA VERSUS WALTER TAKANHIKE AND MOSES GWAUNZA AND KWADZANAYI CHIKAZHE AND UPENYU CHITUMBA AND ADAM NHAMO AND STEMBILE CHIKUMBA AND CEPHAS RANGANAI AND ALICE MHANGA AND AMON MUTENGU AND FABION CHIDZUDZU AND JOU CHITEURE AND JOSEPH RUZANI AND JEMIAS CHINDIYA AND REJOICE DHAVE AND DANIEL PHIRI AND ELLIOT HUVADZE AND EFFORT MUNYANYI AND FORTUNATE TAKAIDZA AND MUCHENA CAROLINE AND EFIAS CHIHLENGWE AND CAROLINE MURIDZERI AND JIMMY CHATIMA AND NYASHA NCUBE AND CUMPAS MATAMBURA AND TRYMORE CHIDENDE AND MARTIN GWATIDZO AND PERPETUAL MASHIRI AND SIKHUMBUDZO GUMBI AND CECILIA CHIPEMBA AND EDSON TIDIGU AND SIKHUMBUDZO NDUNA AND HERBERT MPOFU AND ELIOT BVUNDUKAI AND NYASHA KACHIKAWO AND CAIN NCUBE AND KELVIN CHIDZIKWE AND JOEL MURANDA AND CHRISTOPHER HAPAMIRE AND LESLY MUNYANYI AND RAYMOND MUTUNHIRA AND LANCELOT SHUMBA AND JACOB HOMWE AND MAVIS KATURUZA AND JONAH MUSHONGA AND NKULULEKO TSHUMA AND THOKOZANI NCUBE AND RICHARD CHIWIRE AND COMMERCIAL WORKERS UNION OF ZIMBABWE (2022-12-07)
At the center of the parties’ dispute is control of Commercial Workers Union of Zimbabwe (“the union”). This is a registered trade union which represents the interests of workers in the commercial and allied sectors in Zimbabwe. More

The appellant was convicted of five counts of robbery as defined in s 126 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23]. He was acquitted on one count which was count 3. Counts 1 and 2 were taken as one for sentence, and 12 years imprisonment was imposed. For counts 4, 5 and 6 the appellant was sentenced to 8 years imprisonment on each count. The total for all the counts was therefore 36 years imprisonment. The learned magistrate suspended 5 years imprisonment on condition of good behaviour, and a further 3 years imprisonment on condition of restitution.... More

This is an opposed application in which the applicant seeks to have a decision of the arbitrator set aside in terms of s 34 of the UNCITRAL Model Law, on the grounds that it offends public policy. More

The parties concluded a license agreement as Licensor and Licensee which was effective from 1 August, 2016. On 23 August, 2016, after the applicant failed to secure funding, the parties concluded an Interim Funding Arrangement. More

This is an appeal against the decision of respondent’s Appeals Committee which found appellant guilty of gross negligence in the performance of his duties and dismissed him from employment. Appellant was employed by the respondent as a revenue officer and was stationed at Nyamapanda Border Post.On 16 December 2012 the appellant was assigned duties in the motor traffic section at the search bay. He was working with three other officers and his duties included receiving duly processed export documents from the Commercial Office and the carrying out searches/physical examinations of consignments being exported and the vehicles exporting the consignment. More