On 5March 2021 under HC 136/21 , in a decisionpending the hearing of a review matter, Justice Chirawu-Mugomba of the High Court issued a provisionalorderinterdictingthefirstrespondent,Patricia Darangwa herein, from administering the estate of the late Genius Kadungure under DR No.177/20. The Master of the High Court, the second respondentherein was also interdicted from accepting any process in relation to the administration of the estate of the late Genius Kadungure under DR No. 177/20 filed by and on behalf of the first respondent. Furthermore, the first respondent was interdicted from presenting the letters of administration issued to her in Zimbabwe under DR... More
This is an application for rescission of judgment in terms of Order 49 Rule 449 (a) of the High Court Rules, 1971. The application is opposed by the respondent who contends that the application is entirely devoid of any merit.
Factual background
Inspite of the voluminous nature of the application before this court the facts giving rise to this application may be summerised for convenience as follows. The applicants filed a court application on 5th April 2018 and served it on the respondent on 16th April 2018. Despite having filed their answering affidavit on the 11th of July 2018 and... More
This was an appeal against sentence only. In the court a quo the appellant was unrepresented. She was convicted on her own plea of guilty to contravening s 82(1) of the Parks and Wild Life (General) Regulations of 1990 (SI 362 of 1990) (“the Parks Regulations”), as read with s 128 of the Parks and Wildlife Act, Cap 20:14 (“the Act”). These provisions relate to the illegal possession of ivory. More
It is common cause that all the applicants imported motor vehicles from outside the country using motor vehicle licences or permits that were issued by the third respondent’s ministry, the Ministry of Industry and Commerce. The third respondent is the Minister of Industry and Commerce. The applicants all paid import duty and the motor vehicles were delivered into the country through Beitbridge Border Post. At the instance of the first respondent, the motor vehicles were delivered to different bonded warehouses or transit sheds for storage. That is where the applicants were supposed to collect them from. However, when the applicants... More
This is an appeal against an arbitral award in favour of respondent. Appellants were employed by respondent. Initially they were employed by Air Zimbabwe Holdings Ltd. In 2009 appellants were sent notices of intention to retrenchment. The retrenchment was challenged and there were protracted negotiations. Subsequently retrenchment packages were agreed to on an individual basis. Air Zimbabwe Holdings disbanded in 2012 forming respondent and Air Zimbabwe (Pvt) Ltd. More
This application was placed before me with the title “Chamber application for condonation of late noting of appeal against both conviction and sentence”. However, it was much more than that as the draft order also sought leave to prosecute appeal in person. Nonetheless, the omission of the last part from the title of the application is not fatal.
As stated by CHITAPI J in Mapfumo v The State
“For the avoidance of doubt, in terms of s 36 of the High Court Act, [Chapter 7:06], a self-acting person does not have an automatic right to prosecute his appeal in person... More
After hearing the parties in this matter we dismissed the appeal against conviction and sentence in count 1 in its entirety and allowed the appeal against sentence in count 2. The following are our reasons for doing so.
The appellant, who is a Police officer, was charged with firstly defeating or obstructing the course of justice and secondly, malicious injury to property. He pleaded not guilty to both counts but was convicted after a trial. He was sentenced on the first count to 18 months imprisonment of which 9 months imprisonment was suspended for 5 years on condition of future... More
Before me are two cases namely HC 50/15 and HC 3500/16 which were consolidated. The parties were husband and wife whose marriage was solemnized in Harare on 31 December 1983 and which marriage was terminated by a decree of divorce issued by the High Court of England. A decree nisi was issued on 1 December 2013 while the final decree absolute was issued on 18 December 2014. More
This is an application for condonation of late noting of appeal and extension of time within which to file the appeal in terms of r 31 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1964.
The parties were married but divorced in England. The court in England issued a decree nisi which the first respondent used to obtain an interdict in the local High Court. The interdict barred the applicant from dealing in the property known as No. 5 Reitfontein Close Highlands, Harare, which he claims to be his sole property. More
DEMBURE J: This matter was placed before me as a court application to compel transfer of an immovable property into the applicant’s name. On 5 March 2025, the court issued an ex tempore judgment the operative part of which read as follows:
“The application be and is hereby dismissed with costs on a legal practitioner and client scale.”
On 10 March 2025, the applicant’s legal practitioners requested the written reasons for the court’s decision. What follows are the full written reasons thereof. More
This was a civil appeal. It was from a decision of the magistrate’s court at Kwekwe, Midlands Province. We dismissed it for lack of merit soon after argument and gave reasons ex tempore. This now is our detailed judgment. More
Four preliminary points were raised for the respondents that the appellants were fugitives from justice they should not be heard, that the grounds of appeal raise procedural issues therefore an application for review should have been made, that the grounds of appeal donot raise questions of law and that the appellant waived their right to appeal. More
The applicant is a Zimbabwean citizen. He seeks a declaration of constitutional invalidity of s 192 (6) of the Electoral Act [Chapter 2:13], on the basis that it violates ss 67 (1) (a), 235 (1)(a), 235 (3) and 134 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe. In consequence, he seeks that this Court strike down or expunge the words “approved by the Minister” from the impugned provision. More
“Vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveniunt-the law will help the vigilant not the sluggard”. See Ndebele v Ncube . This is an application for rescission of judgment in which the relief sought is the setting aside of the judgment of 21 December 2016, handed down by this court under case number HC11456-16. The application is brought in terms of both r 63 and r 449 of the rules of this court, as well as the common law according to the notice of application filed of record on 26 January 2017. More
