MUZOFA J: After hearing parties, I dismissed the application with costs. The applicants have requested for written reasons for purposes of appeal.
The applicants are husband and wife. They purchased two plots known as Plot Number 117 and 118 of Halfway Farm Kadoma ‘the property’ from the first respondent. Two agreements of sale were signed. The first applicant signed the agreement in respect of Plot 117 and the second applicant signed the agreement in respect of Plot 118. The second respondent is a registered company that facilitated the sale transaction. Its role in the sale transaction was that of an... More
The parties were once in a love relationship. Two residential stands, 734 and 735, Hatfield Township, of Lot 74A of Block C of Hatfield Estate were jointly purchased and registered in both their names during the tenure of their affair. Somehow, along the way their relationship lost steam and they parted ways. By mutual agreement, the plaintiff relinquished his rights in property stand 735 by deregistering his title, leaving the defendant as the sole registered owner. The same did not apply to property stand number 734, where the plaintiff held on to his co-ownership and proceeded to process the subdivision... More
This is a property dispute emanating from an agreement of sale concluded between the parties in September 2003. The plaintiff’s claim, as amended, is for damages in the sum of US$63,000 (being the cost of obtaining a similar property) or repayment of the sum of US$42,000 (being the total amount paid by the plaintiff to the defendant). More
: The plaintiff issued summons against the first and second defendants seeking an order for specific performance for the completion of construction of a house by the defendants in terms of an agreement concluded between the plaintiff and the second defendant about November 2006. In that agreement, the second defendant had undertaken to construct on stand 3181 of subdivision A of 159 Prospect, a 4 bedroomed house, all bedrooms with built-in cupboards, the main bedroom with en-suite, separate lounge and dining room, second bathroom with tub and toilet, fitted kitchen with walk in pantry, single lock up garage with a... More
On 16 November 2019 the four appellants noted an appeal against the decision of the Master of High Court (5th Respondent herein) where he accepted the late Rosemary Manyange’s Will for the purposes of the administration of the estate. The four appellants outlined twenty-three (23) grounds of appeal contained on five typed pages.
It will not be necessary to repeat the grounds of appeal for the purposes of this judgment. The appeal was set down for hearing on 3 June 2020 after having been postponed earlier due to Covid 19 pandemic. On 3 June 2020 the first and third respondents... More
On 6 April 2023 I ruled that the application by the applicant was not urgent. On 24 April 2023 I received a request for written reasons for that decision. These are they.
Applicant stated that he is the owner of immovable property known as Stand Number 6216(A) Westbrook Park, Kadoma (the property). It is owned through cession title registered with the second respondents. Further that the applicant and his family have resided at the property for the past five years. More
This is an appeal against the judgment of the Magistrates Court sitting at Beitbridge Magistrates Court. Before the Magistrate was an application for contempt of court pursuant to section 71(3) of the Magistrates Court Act [Chapter 7:10]. The respondent herein whom l shall refer to as Baureni in relation to proceedings before the Magistrate was the applicant in the Magistrates Court. The appellants herein were the respondents in the Magistrate Court. Baureni was on 17 January 2021 arrested by the police along the Beitbridge Bulawayo highway. He was driving a Scania truck registration no AFG 0697. He was taken to... More
In this case, the applicants are seeking condonation and extension of time within which to note an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against a decision of the Labour Court.
The Labour Act [Chapter 28:01] (the act) requires a litigant who wishes to appeal to the Supreme Court against a judgment of the Labour Court to file an application for leave to appeal. Section 92F (2) provides that;
“Any party wishing to appeal from any decision of the Labour Court on a question of law in terms of subsection (1) shall seek from the President who made... More
The plaintiff, a former financial director of the defendant company, filed summons on 8 July 2009 seeking payment of the capital sum of US$72 334-00 and interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date when the amount fell due to the date of the issue of summons in the sum of US$12 658-00, payment of interest on the capital amount at the rate of 10% from the date of the issue of summons to the date of payment in full and costs of suit. The defendant contested the matter. More
The applicant issued summons claiming against the defendants, jointly and severally, the one paying the others to be absolved, payment of the sum of $1 702 451.00, arising from moneys lent and advanced to the first defendant for which second and third defendants stood as sureties. More
On April 27th 2018 applicant filed an urgent chamber application for suspension of a sale in execution of a dwelling in terms of Rule 348A (5b) of the High Court Rules, 1971.
In line with rule 348A (6) l treated this matter as urgent. I caused it to be set down for May 2nd at 2.30pm for hearing as soon as it was allocated to me.
Opposing papers were duly filed on April 30th 2018, and served. The parties and their legal practitioners appeared before and, by consent, the matter was postponed to May 3rd 2018 at 9.00am to enable... More
This is an appeal against the decision of the National Employment Council for the Commercial Sectors Appeals Body (NECCS). It confirmed the Local Joint Committee (LJC) decision where it upheld the guilty verdict for appellant and confirmed his dismissal penalty. Background to the matter is that appellant who was in the respondent’s employ had occasion in November 2014 to be suspended from employment without pay and benefits following allegations of abusing his staff account to purchase goods using the same and taking the cash equivalent which the customers would have paid. He was also said to have increased his credit... More
This is an application for review which was made possible by the order granted by my brother MATHONSI J (as he then was) on 14th day of April 2016 in which he granted the applicant condonation to file the application. More
This is an application in terms of s 85(1) (a) and (d) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe (hereinafter referred to as “the Constitution”), in which the applicant seeks the relief set out in the draft order. The draft order seeks the declaration of s 95(1(a) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23] (“the Act”) as unconstitutional. The applicant was charged with contravening the above section. The applicant also seeks an order declaring certain conduct of the State unconstitutional. More
At the onset of oral argument in this Court 1st respondent raised 3 (three) points in limine which applicant opposed. The points shall be dealt with ad seriatim.
1. That the deponent to the founding affidavit does not have authority to institute these proceedings:
The founding affidavit was deposed by Ms Lisa Zvinavashe in her capacity as the attorney for applicant. Respondent argued that Zvinavashe could not institute legal proceedings without a board resolution authorising her to do so. In furtherance of this argument reliance was placed on the matter of Dube v PSMAS 2019(3) ZLR 589 (S) at paragraph... More
