This is an appeal against the whole judgment of the High Court handed down on 31 July 2023, in which it confirmed the cancellation of an agreement of sale between the first respondent and the appellants. More
This is an application in terms of ss 85 (1) (a) and 85 (1) (b) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (No.20/2013) (“the Constitution”). The first applicant is acting in both her own interest and that of her husband who is the second applicant. More
The applicant filed an urgent chamber application for the setting aside of para 11 of the High Court’s order made after hearing consolidated opposed applications in H/C 6272/19, H/C 6630/19 and H/C 6692. In para 11 of its order the court a quo ordered that:
“Notwithstanding any appeal that the first respondent may file against this order, the operation of this order shall not be suspended by the filing of such an appeal.”
The court a quo’s order in para 11 was clearly intended to render the anticipated appeal by the applicant ineffective as regards the suspension of the orders... More
On 31 March 2020, this Court handed down judgment number CCZ 4/2020, disposing of two applications made by the first and second respondents against the applicants and the third and fourth respondents under cases number CCZ 57/2017 and 58/2017 respectively. The two applications, filed separately and on different dates, were brought in terms of s 167 (2)(d) of the Constitution as read with r 27 of the Constitutional Court Rules 2016, alleging that the second applicant had failed to fulfil the obligation to pass Constitutional Bill (No 1) of 2017 in accordance with the Constitution. More
HLATSHWAYO JA: This is an appeal against the entire judgment delivered by the Honourable Justice Zhou in the High Court of Zimbabwe.
The order sought to be impugned reads as follows:
“IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1. Judgment be and is hereby given in favour of the plaintiff against the first, second and third defendants jointly and severally the one paying the others to be absolved for:
(a) Payment of US$1 105 748.90 plus interest at the rate of 15 per cent per annum from the 9 September 2015 such interest calculated monthly and in advance on the said sum and... More
This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court sitting at Masvingo delivered on 24 June 2020 which dismissed with costs the application made by the two appellants for a declaratory order and an interdict.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The two appellants are sugar producing giants in the Lowveld while the first respondent is the statutory body charged with revenue collection in Zimbabwe. The remainder of the respondents are either sugar cane farmers or associations representing such farmers. The respondents will be referred to in this judgment for convenience, as Zimbabwe Revenue Authority and the farmers respectively More
This is an application brought in terms of s 85(1) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe (hereinafter called ‘the Constitution’). The applicants seek an order declaring the employment of serving members of the security services, as prosecutors, to be unconstitutional. More
This is an application brought in terms of s 85(1) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe (hereinafter called ‘the Constitution’). The applicants seek an order declaring the employment of serving members of the security services, as prosecutors, to be unconstitutional. More
This is an appeal against the whole judgment of the High Court handed down on 4 September 2018, dismissing with costs, an application made by the appellant in terms of Article 34 of the Arbitration Act (Chapter 7:15) for the setting aside of an arbitral award issued in favour of the first respondent by the second respondent. More
This is an appeal against the whole judgment of the High Court of Zimbabwe handed down on the 31 August 2021, and ordering the eviction of the appellants and all those claiming occupation through them, from a mining claim labelled Valentine 56. At the end of the hearing, the court dismissed the appeal with costs and indicated that full reasons for the judgment would follow in due course. These are they. More
After hearing counsel in this matter we dismissed the appeal with no order as to costs and indicated that our reasons would follow in due course. Below are the reasons for judgement. More
This is an opposed application for the review of taxation done by the first respondent in terms of r 56(2) of the Supreme Court Rules, 2018 (“the Rules”). Essentially, the applicants contend that the first respondent acted wrongly in deciding that the second and third respondents’ legal practitioner was entitled to levy her fees using only the upper margin fee of her applicable range of fees and in allowing a fifty percent premium on the fees levied. More
The appellants are partners of the law firm practising as Mtetwa&Nyambirai Legal Practitioners (“Mtetwa&Nyambirai”). The first respondent is a legal firm, whose principal is Mark Rujuwa, a former associate at the appellant’s law firm. The second respondent was previously employed by the appellants as an accounts clerk at their law firm. By virtue of his position as an accounts clerk, the second respondent was also a custodian of the keys to the safe ofMtetwa&Nyambirai.
Sometime in February 2022, Mtetwa&Nyambirayi discovered that the second respondent had stolen ZWL$32 000 000.00 from its trust account and converted the same to United States... More
This is an appeal against the whole judgment of the High Court, sitting at Harare, handed down on 29 July 2020 as judgment number HH495/20, wherein the court a quo granted a declaratory order to the effect that the appellants were no longer members of the respondent and were thus not entitled to the use of the respondent’s name and properties. More
After perusing documents filed of record and hearing counsel in this matter, it was the unanimous view of the court that the appeal lacked merit. Accordingly, we dismissed the appeal with costs and intimated that our reasons would be available in due course. More
