After hearing this matter I issued an order in terms of the draft. The record was then mislaid resulting in the applicant construction a dummy file so that an order could be issued. The respondent despite having been served with the application and having entered opposition failed to appear at the hearing. In view of the relief being sought I found myself unable to grant an order in the absence of argument on the legality of the order being sought. I therefore sought the assistance of Mr Zhou specifically to advise the court whether or not the form of relief... More
This is an application for the setting aside of a judgment given in default of the applicant in case number HC 864/11. The judgment was given on 26 May 2011. The applicant states that he became aware of the default judgment on 25 July 2011 when he was served with the notice of attachment and removal of goods by the Deputy Sheriff. The instant application was instituted on 23 August 2011. More
On the day of the hearing of this matter the parties opted not make any oral submissions. They proposed that I make a determination on the basis of the papers filed of record. I obliged. At any rate, the applicant’s answering affidavit and heads of argument, although having been issued earlier, were at that time still to find their way into the court record. More
On 28 September 2018, I removed the chamber application from the roll. The applicant has not sought the reasons for my decisions to remove the matter from the roll but has written letters seeking to convince the court to revisit the matter and grant the chamber application despite his none compliance with the court directives. The reasons for the removal of the matter are outlined herein. More
: On 18 September 2018 the applicant filed a court application for review seeking the following relief spelt out in the draft order:
1. The decision of the first respondent in which she made an order for the rescission of default judgment in court case number 127/18 in favour of second respondent be and is set aside.
2. The application of second respondent for rescission of default judgment be remitted for rehearing before a different magistrate.
On 28 September 2018 the second respondent filed its opposing papers. More
Mr James Stewart Drynan (Applicant) filed a court application for review seeking the following relief.
“Having heard the applicant in person and documents filed of record, it is ordered that:
1. The decision of the 1st respondent in civil case 1150/18 be and is set aside.
2. The second respondent’s summons in civil case 1150/18 be and is hereby dismissed.” More
This is a bail application pending trial. The applicants are charged with the crime of contravening s 45(1)(a) as read with s 128(1)(a) of Parks and Wildlife Act [Chapter 20:14] as amended by General Laws Amendment No. 5 (148/11) “Hunt a specially protected animal (Rhinoceros). It being alleged that on 14 July 2022 and at Bubye Valley Conservancy, the applicants one or both of them unlawfully hunted and killed a black rhinoceros which is a protected species using a 315 rifle in contravention of the Act. More
On 23 May 2005, the respondent issued summons out of Marondera Magistrates’ court. Her claim against the defendant, as it appears on the face of the summons, is recorded as “sharing property”. An affidavit was attached to the summons, curiously titled in my view as “Applicant’s supporting affidavit (Property Sharing)”. In the affidavit, the respondent alleged that she was in an unregistered customary union with the appellant and that during the subsistence of the union, the parties had acquired certain household goods and effects. She gave the estimate value of each item that she alleged the parties acquired. She further... More
This judgment is in respect of two applications which were heard together. The two applications are between the same parties. Case number HCH 6178/23 is an application for condonation of late filing of an application for rescission of a default judgment that was granted against the applicants in case number HC 280/18. The second application, HCH 6602/23, is the application for rescission of judgment to which the condonation being sought in HCH 6178/23 relates. The two applications were filed on different dates. The condonation application was filed first. The parties are the same in both cases. Also, the facts relied... More
This is an urgent chamber application in which the applicants seek a Provisional Order in the following terms:
“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:-
1. That first, second and fourth respondents and/or their agents shall not interfere in any manner whatsoever with applicants’ possession of Glencairn Mine or the assets thereat
INTERIM RELIEF GRANTED
Pending the determination of this matter, the applicants are granted the following relief:-
2. That first, second and fourth respondents be and are hereby ordered to remove... More
This is an appeal against the decision of the Magistrates’ Court sitting at Harare refusing all the seventy- four (74) appellants admission to bail. The decision was delivered on 27 June 2024. The demographics of the appellants is interesting. They were not a random assembly. Instead, they hail from different but clearly defined clusters predominantly the suburbs of Chitungwiza, Epworth and Hatcliffe which account for almost three quarters of the appellants. Equally noteworthy is the fact that fifty-seven of the appellants are not formally employed and that over sixty of them are aged below forty years. They are of the... More
This is an application for eviction.
The brief facts of this matter are as follows.The applicant is the registered owner of stand 8141 Salisbury Township of Salisbury Township Lands, otherwise known as Number 17 St Dominic’s road, Milton Park, Harare.Sometime in August 2011 the Sheriff of Zimbabwe advertised the sale of the stand. The property was to be sold by public auction in a suit involving Kingdom Bank Ltd, and Colforth Investments(Pvt) Ltd and 10 others under case No HC5917/10.The plaintiff in that matter had obtained default judgment after the defendants had failed to attend a pre Trial Conference.The Sheriff... More
At the centre of this dispute is property Stand, 1577 Highfields Township, Harare, registered in the name of Ragison Mabika, now deceased. The first respondent is the widow and surviving spouse of the deceased. She was duly appointed the Executor of the estate. After registering the deceased’s estate with the inclusion of the above property, letters of administration where subsequently issued. Following due process, the first respondent then sold the property to the second respondent and is in the process of transferring the same to the current purchaser. More
This civil trial involved the double sale of an immovable property. It would appear that the two ladies, the plaintiff and the second defendant, were victims of the fraudulent activities of the first respondent (hereinafter called Goremusandu). To make things worse, Goremusandu died in 2003, before the trial commenced and did not give evidence.
Summons in this matter were issued in January 2002 and both defendants entered appearance to defend. Second defendant counterclaimed against the plaintiff for transfer and for the eviction of the plaintiff. More
The dispute in casu is steeped in the sale of a deceased immovable property whose purchase price was paid by the applicant but transfer of which the respondent failed to effect. The draft order the applicant seeks is couched in these words More
