A Mr Abrahum Petros Louw Van Niekerk (Van Niekerk) by virtue of a Deed of Transfer 7477/73 was the registered owner of a certain piece of land situate in the District of Salisbury called the remaining extent of Lushof of Shinghaini measuring 428, 2613 hectares. (the property).
On 8 March 2001, Van Niekerk offered the property for sale to applicant. On 24 July 2001, first respondent issued to Van Niekerk a certificate of no present interest (Co N P I) which indicated that neither the President nor the Government had any intention to acquire the land in question. The Co... More
This is an application for rescission of Judgment granted by this court on 29 July 2013 dismissing the applicants’ appeal.
On 8 January 2014the applicants applied for rescission of the default order.
The factors to be considered in an application such as this one are;
• length of delay in applying for rescission.
• reasons for the default.
• prospects of success, and balance of convenience. More
The applicants applied to this court for the following remedy;
“1. That the 1st and 2nd respondents and all those claiming occupation through them be and are hereby ordered to vacate from the premises at stand 13975 Salisbury Township of Salisbury Township Lands Community known as stand 13 975 Plover Avenue Mt Pleasant Harare within seven days of the service of this order on them. More
The following factual background is common cause:-
- that Appellant had been in Respondent’s employ for 16 years and at the time the issue giving rise to this appeal arose, he was based at Respondent’s Marondera branch.
- that on or before the 16th May 2011 Appellant and Respondent’s General Manager Mr Madovi had some discussion which led to Appellant verbally tendering his resignation from Respondent’s employ
- that on the 16th May 2011 Appellant reduced the verbal resignation into writing.
- that on the same day the 16th May 2011 the General Manager Mr Madovi went to Marondera where... More
This is an urgent chamber application for an interim order that pending determination of the present matter on the return date the first respondent forthwith delivers to the Sheriff all the machinery and equipment listed in the applicant’s papers and for such machinery and equipment to be kept under the custody of the second respondent with the third respondent exercising supervision over such custody. The final order sought is that pending determination of the application for rescission of judgment instituted by the applicant under Case No. HC 8599/18 the machinery and equipment referred to in the interim relief be “parked... More
This is an application for leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court (the court a quo). The applicant was convicted of murder with constructive intent and sentenced to 10 years imprisonment. He applied for leave to appeal before the court a quo without success. He now brings the application in terms of s 44 of the High Court Act [Chapter 7:06] as read with r 20 (1) of the Supreme Court Rules 2018. More
The four applicants are the fathers and guardians of their respective minor daughters, all four of whom are pupils at Arundel School, a private girls’ school situated in Harare. The first and second respondents are the Trustees and Headmistress of the School. The third respondent is the Minister of Primary and Secondary Education, cited in his official capacity, and the fourth respondent is the Attorney-General, also cited in his official capacity. More
On 19 May 2021 after considering papers filed of record and hearing counsel we gave an extempore judgment wherein we dismissed the appeal in its entirety. We undertook to avail written reasons in due course. These are they:
The appellant was arraigned before the Magistrates Court facing a charge of attempted rape as defined in s 189(1)(a) or (b) as read with s 65(1)(b) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23]. After a protracted trial the accused who had pleaded not guilty was convicted and sentenced to 5 years imprisonment of which 2 years imprisonment was suspended... More
It is this order that I seek to set aside mero motu having since realised that I made the order in error, as the order is null and void as I will explain. This matter came before me as an application for bail pending appeal. The applicant had been convicted of contravening Section 60A of the Electricity Act [Chapter 13:19] and sentenced to 10 years imprisonment. The State had filed a response on 15 September 2021 in which it commented that the applicant had been properly convicted and sentenced, and that there were no prospects of success on appeal.
When... More
This is a court application for a Decree of Perpetual Silence against the respondent who is a very litigious individual and has instituted several court processes whose result has been to frustrate the applicant. More
On the 10th December, 2012 Respondent filed a notice of appeal in this court against an arbitral award which was issued on the 18th November, 2012. The notice of appeal (LC3) and notice by Registrar (LC2) were served on and received by the Appellant’s legal practitioners on the same date at 15.45 hours. More
Appellant appealed against his dismissal from employment by Respondent. His papers complained about both procedure and the merits. Respondent opposed the appeal.
However in the course of oral argument, Respondent made two concessions. Firstly it abandoned its argument based on the distinction between an appeal and a review. It was obvious that Appellant intended to file an appeal-cum-review. As a lay person, he could not be expected to draft his papers with the precision of an attorney. On that basis, I consider Respondent’s concession as well-made. Respondent also conceded that the charge of assault had not been sustained. This was... More
This is an urgent application. This application was lodged in this court on 15 January 2021. The application is opposed by both 1st and 2nd respondents, although 2nd respondent did not contribute much to the debate. Applicant seeks a provisional order formulated in the following terms:
Terms of final order sought
That you show cause to this Honourable Court on the return date why a final order should not be made in the following terms:
1. The 1st respondent be and is hereby ordered to vacate Imbesu Kraal and carry out its mining activities as directed by the certificate of... More
