On 31 August, 2010 I dismissed with costs an urgent chamber application on the ground that the matter was not urgent. The applicants have noted an appeal to the Supreme Court and have asked for the written reasons on which the dismissal was predicated. These are they. More
This was an appeal against eviction which we dismissed on 14 of March 2023. Written reasons have been sought and these are they. The background was as follows: Summons were issued in the court below by the respondent (as plaintiff) seeking eviction of the appellant (as defendant) from Stand 3709 Gillingham Estate, Dzivarasekwa, also known as Nehanda Housing Cooperative. More
This is an application for the granting of default judgment against the defendants who after filing a notice of intention to defend this action through the Civil Division of the Attorney General’s Office neglected to file their pleas resulting in them being barred from pleading hence this application. More
: On 25 October 2013 I declined to hear this application on an urgent basis and gave my brief reasons ex tempore to the legal practitioners of the parties. On 5 November 2013 I was informed by the Registrar as per the letter written by the applicant’s legal practitioners dated 5 November 2013 that the applicants have filed an appeal to the Supreme Court against my decision for refusal to hear the matter on an urgent basis. I was enjoined to provide the reasons for that decision. Here they are:- More
The applicant approached the court seeking an order compelling the respondent to comply with a specific portion of a divorce consent order under HC 12314/12 issued on 1st April 2014. More
The appeal was noted against an arbitral award handed down on 20 September 2011.
The background facts are as follows;
The Respondent was employed by the Appellant as a Truck Driver. He was engaged from the 25 August 2010 to the 28th October 2010. It is not clear from the record the status of his employment contract. The Appellant submits he was on probation contract a point disputed by the Respondent. The Respondent submitted he was on an (oral) contract without limit of time. More
The appellants have noted an appeal to this court against the whole judgment of the Magistrates’ Court sitting at Bulawayo on 2 October 2017.
The grounds of appeal are essentially these:
(a) The learned magistrate in the court a quo erred in dismissing the application for rescission of judgment.
(b) The learned magistrate erred in failing to appreciate that the default judgment was entered erroneously. More
The plaintiff issued out summons claiming $54 280.00 for services rendered in terms of a contract between the parties and interest at the prescribed rate from the date of summons to the date of payment in full. More
An owner of property may recover it from whoever possess it without his consent (BadelaNdlovu vSpiwe Posi HH 475/15). The actio rei vindicatio is an action brought by an owner of the property to recover it from any person who retains possession of it without his consent (Tendai Savanhu vHwange Colliery Company, SC 8/15). The principle that an owner cannot be deprived of his property against his will means that he is entitled to recover it from any person who retains possession of it without his consent (Silberbeg and Schoeman: Law of Property, 3 ed, p 273). More
The applicant Milrite (Private) Limited is a company dully incorporated in terms of the laws of Zimbabwe carrying on business as a farming concern under the style of StilfonteinEstates. It is the former owner of a certain piece of farmland called Stilfontein of Umzila situate in the district of Chipinge commonly known as Stilfontein. More
The applicant is the former owner of Stilfontein of Umzila of Chipinge. Its farm was acquired by the State, but it did not vacate the farm as provided by s 3 (2) of the-Gazetted Land (Consequential Privisions) Act [Cap 20:28], hereinafter called “theAct”. It was prosecuted, convicted and sentenced for contravening s 3 (3), of the Act by a Magistrate sitting at Chipinge Magistrate’s court. The magistrate evicted the applicant from Stilfontein in terms of s 3 (5) of the Act. It vacated the farm, in spite of its having applied for and obtained from KUDYA J, an order directing... More
The background to this matter is spelt out in the judgment of MUSAKWAJ in Chiriga Estates and 2 others v Minister of Lands and Rural Resettlement & 9 Others HH 34/10 (HC 665/10), hereinafter refereed to as “the first application”. The current application shall be referred to as “the second application”. When the second application was brought before me, the first respondent raised the issue of res judicata, as a preliminary point. The plea was upheld on 19 March, with reasons to follow. It is the reasons for upholding this preliminary point that this judgment addresses. More
