: The dispute in this matter concerns a piece of land of substantial hectarage situate in the district of Goromonzi called remaining extent of Stuhm measuring 1074.7410 hectares. The property was registered in the name of Cecil Michael Reimer under deed of Transfer No. 3032/87. Consequent upon obtaining a subdivision permit to divide the land, Reimer created subdivisions called Lot 1 measuring 583.1360 hectares and Lots 2 and 3 measuring respectively 412.1091 hectares and 79 4959 hectares. The lots were sold respectively to TBIC Investments and registered under Deed of Transfer No. 1724/09 for Lot 1; to Damall Investments and... More
I have decided in the two cases above that it would make justice “turn on its head” if I did not grant relief to the applicant. These cases were heard together. The parties had agreed to such a course of action. More
This is a chamber application which was made in terms of r 39 (4) of the Rules of the Supreme Court, 1964. The applicant was seeking an order to lead further evidence in a matter which had been heard on appeal in this court and was awaiting judgment. More
On the 25th of August 2022, I granted a provisional order with the following interim relief:
“TERMS OF THE 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 2nd respondent be and is hereby ordered to restrain from any action whatsoever on, or with respect to, the piece of land called the remaining extent of Stuhm situated in the District of Goromonzi in Mashonaland East Province measuring 583.1360 hectares until the matter under HC 5231/22 matter (sic) is finalized.
2. The 1st, 2nd and... More
This is an application by an accused in a criminal trial for a review of the decision of the Magistrate sitting at Harare dismissing his application to alter his plea from guilty to not guilty after verdict.
The accused had pleaded guilty to a charge of contravening section 27 of the Fire Arms, [Chapter 10:09] before the magistrate on 15 October 2003. The plea was dealt with in terms of section 271(2)(b) of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act, [Chapter 9:07].
The accused was initially unrepresented.
The charge was put. He pleaded guilty. Agreed facts were read to the accused More
The applicant is a Zimbabwean citizen who has been resident in United Arab Emirates for around eleven years. At the expiration of his residence in United Arab Emirates, the applicant returned to Zimbabwe in December 2019. He alleged that the respondent, on 10 February 2020, after assessment, came to conclude that he qualified for the returning resident duty free rebate. He further asserted that some of his goods including solar system, water pump, garden irrigation system and 40 ft container were denied duty free rebate. These goods were, according to the applicant, supposed to be taken to the applicant’s plot... More
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
