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
The appellants are nine cooperative societies which have been dishing out residential stands at a piece of land known as Saturday Retreat Estate (the land) for quite some time. The land is held by the first respondent by Deed of Transfer number 4035/86 and was acquired by the Government of Zimbabwe for urban development by Acquisition of Land Order dated 20 March 2014. More
On 13 April 2021, the applicants filed a chamber application for condonation and extension of time to appeal in terms of r 61 as read with r 43 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2018. It is opposed by the first respondent. More
The appellants appeal against the whole judgment of the High Court dated 12 March 2020. The court a quo dismissed an application wherein the appellants sought a declaration of invalidity against a confirmed sale in execution of Stand No. 230 Vainona Township of Vainona (the immovable property), the consequential vacation of the sale and the resale of the immovable property by private treaty. More
GUVAVA JA:
1. This is an appeal against the whole judgment of the High Court (court a quo) sitting at Harare dated 11 July 2019. The courta quodismissed the appellant’s application seeking a review of the first respondent’s decision to call three new witnesses during a criminal trial.
2. The delay in handing down this judgment is regretted but was due to circumstances beyond my control.
3. The facts of the matter which are pertinent to this appeal may be summarized as follows. The appellants were jointly chargedwith perjury and fraud as defined in ss 183(1) and 136 of the... More
After hearing the parties on 2 March 2017 this Court pronounced:
“It is the unanimous view of this Court that the appeal is devoid of merit and ought to fail. Accordingly, it is ordered as follows:
The appeal is dismissed with costs.
Reasons for this judgment will follow in due course.” More
