The plaintiff issued summons against the defendants for an order declaring that the defendants ran the business of Royal Bank Zimbabwe Limited recklessly, with gross negligence and that they are therefore personally liable, without limitation of liability, for all of the debts or liabilities of Royal Bank Zimbabwe. More
On 15January 2013 the appellant was driving a Nissan Elgrand which is not registered along Zimplats road with one passenger on board. He was stopped by Police Officers who were carrying outanenforcement along the said road. The Officers discovered that the appellant was not a holder of a driver’s licence. He was arrested and was convicted by a KadomaMagistrate on his own plea of guilty to contravening s 6 of the Road Traffic Act [Cap 13.11]. He was sentenced to 6 months imprisonment of which 3 months imprisonment was suspended for 5 years on the usual condition of good behaviour.... More
This is an application for bail pending review. It arises out of proceedings conducted in the Regional Magistrates’ Court, sitting at Harare, in terms of s 271(2)(b) of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act [Chapter 9:07]. On 6 September 2023, the applicant was convicted, on his own plea, of the crime of theft as defined in s 113(1) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:023]. The property stolen was a motor vehicle. He was sentenced to 3 years imprisonment of which 1 year imprisonment was suspended for 5 years on condition of good behaviour. More
CHAREWA J: This is a matter which should never have seen the light of day in court but for the plaintiff’s obduracy in persisting with the claim and the dearth of proper legal advice.
Claim
Plaintiff sued the defendants seeking a declaratur that the sale agreement between 1st and 2nd defendant was invalid as there existed a prior sale to himself. Accordingly he sought a further declaratur that he be declared the rightful owner of the premises in question. And further that he should recover his costs on a legal practitioner and client scale. More
The applicant was employed by the respondent as a battery charger based in Norton. The applicant was suspended from employment sometime in January 1998 on allegations of misconduct. The applicant has lodged this particular application because he alleges in his founding affidavit that this honorable court declined to rescind judgment number LC/H/130/23. The applicant also alleges that the same judgment was obtained through fraud. The applicant has brought forward this present application for leave to appeal in a bid to appeal against the honorable court’s decision to dismiss his application for rescission for default judgment. More
On 10 July 2006, the respondent herein, whom I shall refer to as the plaintiff issued summons in the Magistrates Court Harare against the appellant, the defendant claiming “sharing of property.” Particularsof claim attached to the summons made reference to a customary union which resulted in the establishment of a universal partnership. It was accordingly prayed that it would be just and equitable for the court to order that a house shared by the parties during the partnership be sold and the proceeds jointly shared between the parties. More
In May 2011 plaintiff issued summons against defendant claiming US $52 000-00 damages for pain and suffering, loss of amenities of life, permanent disability and future medical expenses which damages he suffered as a result of a motor vehicle accident which he alleges was caused by defendant’s negligence.
Defendant entered appearance to defend and filed his plea and a counterclaim. In the counterclaim defendant is claiming damages from plaintiff for the repairs he effected to his motor vehicle, the damages having arisen as a result of plaintiff’s negligence.
The matter proceeded to pretrial conference stage and finally a date of... More
This is an application for quantification of damages. In this case the applicant successfully applied for a review of the disciplinary proceedings which were carried out by the respondent employer, which proceedings saw his dismissal. More
The Plaintiffs who are husband and wife issued summons on 25 March 2014 against the first defendant claiming for an order that the first defendant and all those claiming occupation through him be evicted from Lot 11 of Danbury Park Estate within 48 hours of service of the order upon him. That the first defendant pays costs of suit. By order of this Honourable Court in HC 3127/18 dated 19 November 2018 the second defendant was joined as the 2nd Defendant and the summons were amended accordingly. More
Appellant was convicted on his own plea of guilty to contravening s 131 (1) (a) as read with s 131 (2) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23]. He was sentenced to 9 years imprisonment of which 6 months were suspended on condition of restitution. A further 12 months were suspended for 3 years on condition of good behaviour. More
Two issues are the subject of this review. These are:-
(1) Whether a referral to the company executive was unlawful and
(2) Whether or not the court can order reinstatement. More
In the present case, the appellant was driving a Honda Fit, alone with no passengers on board. He was ordered to stop by the police officers and he complied. Thereafter it was revealed he was not a holder of a driver’s licence. The appellant cooperated with the police and at court he did not waste time and resources by pleading guilty to the offence. In its reasons for sentence the court just mentioned the mitigatory factors but sentence imposed speaks volumes of the court not having placed any weight to the mitigatory factors. A plea of guilty although not reducing... More
: The applicant sought an order for condonation of late noting of an appeal and leave to appeal in person. I heard the application and dismissed it. Applicant now seeks reasons for the dismissal. The reasons are as follows: The charge applicant faced before the Regional Magistrate sitting at Karoi is that of contravening of s 65 of the Criminal Law and Codification and Reform Act [Chapter 9:23] (Rape). More
The applicant’s response to the query raised on 16 January 2023 erroneously dated 16 January 2022 is acknowledged. Applicant should note that a respondent who has failed to take appropriate action in response to court proceedings (in this case an ordinary chamber application) within the dies induciae given is not always automatically barred on account of such default. Such party can always comply outside the dies induciae provided no judgment has since been obtained by the party who has approached the court for relief if there is no bar operating against him. Just to illustrate the point – a defendant... More
This is an urgent chamber application in which the provisional order sought has 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. The applicant be and is hereby awarded custody of Tinotenda Nyakudanga born 6 May 2005, Nellia Nyakudanga born 4 April 2011, Nokutenda Nyakudanga born 4 August 2014 and Bothwell Nyakudanga born 4 June 2016.
2. Respondent be and is hereby awarded access to the minor children every alternating school holiday and public holidays. Respondent shall enjoy access... More
