This chamber application was placed before me curiously titled, “Chamber application for the Master’s Consent in terms of order 32, Rule 249(1) (b). The relief sought was the ‘approval’ for the sale of stand 16834 Ruwa township of Sebastopol measuring 300 square metres held under Deed no. 3534/2009. This property is currently registered in the names of the applicant and her minor child one Ryan Tafadzwa Chipere. The chamber application in its heading completely misses the mark as it is not the role of the Master of the High Court to ‘consent’ to sales of properties belonging to a minor... More
This is an application for the setting aside of the decision of the first respondent, the Master of the High Court (hereinafter referred to as “the Master”), in terms of which the first respondent dismissed an objection to the Second Interim Liquidation and Distribution Account prepared by the second respondent in respect of the company known as Kunganda Farm (Private) Limited. More
This is an urgent chamber application in which the applicants seek in the interim a stay of the proceedings in the Magistrates Court Case No. MC7485/10. The final relief sought is that the first, second and third respondent be interdicted from continuing with “the execution of the default judgment granted by the first respondent under case number MC7485/10.” More
On 31 July, 2012 a legal entity which is known as Roberts Drive Investments (Private) Limited (“Roberts”) sold to Kangausaru Investments (Private) Limited (“Kangausaru”), the first respondent herein, 3000 Class F Shares. The shares relate to Unit No. 8, 75 Roberts Drive, Msasa, Harare (“the property”). More
Central to this matter is the law pertaining to the lodging of claims against a deceased estate in terms of the Administration of Estates Act, [Chapter 6: 01]. “the act”, and action to take when a claim is rejected. The applicant has approached the court seeking the following relief: More
On 14 March 2023, the Supreme Court set aside this Court’s judgment and made the following Order:
“1. The appeal be and is hereby allowed with costs.
2. The judgment of the court a quo be and is hereby set aside and substituted with the appeal be and is hereby allowed. More
On 24 October 2017, my brother Judge, FOROMA J granted a provisional order in favour of the applicants in the following terms;
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
TERMS OF THE FINAL RELIEF
That you show cause to this Honourable Court why a final order should not be made in the following terms
1. 1st respondent be and is hereby compelled to release all documents necessary to enable applicants to exercise their right of first refusal in respect of a certain piece of land situate in the District of Salisbury measuring 9465 square metres held under deed 3351/73 otherwise known as... More
The plaintiff and the defendant were joined in holy matrimony in terms of the Marriage Act [Chapter 5:11] on 16 May 1994 at Harare and their marriage still subsists.
Their marriage was blessed with two children who are now of majority status.
The marriage relationship between the parties has hit rock bottom such that on 15 July 2015 plaintiff lodged thisaction seeking dissolution of the marriage and the distribution of the assets of the spouse in terms of the Matrimonial Cause Act, [Chapter 5:13]. More
The background of this matter is that applicants and respondents have a dispute regarding issues at the 8th and 9th respondents being a church in Zimbabwe but also headquartered internationally overseas. Applicants are disgruntled with the manner in which the constitution of the church in Zimbabwe from the founding affidavit and the rest of the papers although the draft order (clause (9)) thereof is relating to the constitution of 1st respondent yet 1st respondent per the founding affidavit is a natural person. There is seemingly a problem there. The applicants also have an issue with the way they were evicted... More
MAKARAU J: The parties were married at Hwange on 12 January 1990. The marriage still subsists. There are two minor children of the marriage, namely Ngoni Rutendo, a daughter aged thirteen, and Kudzaishe Anesu, a son, aged 10. Certain differences have crept into the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant, resulting in the plaintiff instructing her legal practitioners to issue summons out of this court, claiming a decree of divorce, an order granting her custody of Ngoni and Kudzaishe, maintenance for the minor children and an award of the assets of the matrimony under section 7 of the Matrimonial... More
This matter was placed before me as an urgent chamber application having been filed on the 23rd of February 2021. Upon receipt I gave directions for the filing of notices of opposition and opposing affidavits as well as heads of argument. The second respondent did not file a notice of opposition and as a result the court took it that he will abide by the decision rendered. The applicants through the urgent chamber application seek an interdict and on the return date a review. Ordinarily an application for review should be filed separately but given the prevailing COVID lockdown and... More
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
