This judgment relates to two appeals which the appellant filed before this court against the decisions of the Magistrates Court siting at Mutasa, one being under HCMTC 40/25 (hereinafter called the first matter) and the other being under HCMTF 57/25 (hereinafter called the second matter). Both decisions were in favor of the respondent and the issues arising are related to the extent that the two matters were consolidated for purposes of the hearing and it is also conv More
This is an appeal against the judgement of the High Court in Case No. HC 9914/15 handed down as Judgement No. HH 599-17. There is also a related judgement of the High Court, to which I shall revert later, in Case No. HC 9438/15 handed down as Judgement No. HH 609-17. More
The applicant instituted the instant application seeking an order in the following terms:
“IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1. The appointment of the first respondent as liquidator of Kunganda Farm be declared a nullity.
2. That all liquidation proceedings by the first respondent be and are hereby set aside.
3. That the sale of the remainder of Goodwill Estates in the district of Hartley measuring 4219487 hectares be and is hereby set aside. In the event that the said piece of land has been transferred to the fifth respondent or any other party, such deed of transfer be and is hereby... More
The Plaintiff instituted summons commencing action against the Defendant on 13 October 2023 seeking a decree of divorce and ancillary relief. In response to the summons and declaration, the Defendant filed both a substantive plea and a special plea on the grounds that the court has no jurisdiction to preside over the matter and in the alternative that the matter is lis alibi pendens and ought to be stayed pending determination of the matter in Canada. It was submitted for the Plaintiff that even though there are proceedings pending in Canada he is being prejudiced as he is being denied... More
I heard and determined this matter in my Chambers on the 28th June 2018 and at the end of the hearing, I gave an ex tempore judgment. The first respondent has noted an appeal in the matter and this is my determination in writing. More
On 5 December 2023 this Court issued an order striking out the respondents opposing papers and ordered that the appeal should proceed as an unopposed matter. Following that order, the appeal was subsequently allowed and the decision of the designated agent which had been appealed against was set aside. The appellant was to be reinstated or paid damages in lieu of reinstatement. This subsequent order was issued on 6 December 2023. The then responded now seeks to challenge the order of the 6th of December2023 in this application for condonation and rescission of judgment. More
On 2 September 2011 I dismissed with costs the provisional order sought by the applicant. I delivered a handwritten judgment in which I set out the reasons for my decision. On 5 September 2011 the applicant wrote a letter to the registrar requesting my written reasons. The letter was only brought to my attention on 18 October 2011 together with the applicant’s reminder of 10 October 2011. I reproduce hereunder the full judgment I delivered on 2 September 2011. More
Applicant and respondent were customarily married and they have two children. Sometime in 2014 they had marital disputes leading to a separation. Applicant then approached the Magistrates’ Court, Bulawayo where he obtained an order for custody of the minor children, see page 9 of the record. Respondent sought an order for rescission of the default judgment but the application was dismissed. The dispute moved to this court on appeal and this generated the following matters, HCA 104/16; HCA 18/17 and HCA 04/18. More
On the 30th May 2017 I upheld a preliminary point raised by F. Mahere that the applicant was not represented in these proceedings and I gave the following order-
“1. Applicant not represented. Application be and is hereby dismissed. Mr F.M. Katsande and S. Mutema to pay costs de bonis propriis.” More
This is an application for summary judgment.
On 18 August 2010 the applicants issued summons against the respondents seeking the following relief:-
“(a) Delivery of 70 5000 litres of diesel
(b) Payment of the replacement value of 70 5000 litres of diesel at the market rate
prevalent on the date of judgment;
(c) Costs of suit on the legal practitioners and client scale” More
The 1st and 2nd Respondents referred complaints of alleged unfair practice, unlawful termination of employment contracts, non- payment of wages and allowances. It is common cause this was during the Covid-19 period where employees were being requested to stay at home. Before the Designated Agent 1st and 2nd Respondents (who were claimants) submitted that 1st Respondent was engaged on 1st December, 2007 and was later elevated to position of Floor Supervisor Grade 10 in 2013, 2nd Respondent was employed in 25th December 2014 as a senior section cook Grade 6. They submitted that in February 2020 they reached agreement with... More
MAKONESE J: This matter has been brought before this court as a stated case in terms of Rule 199 of the High Court, Civil Rules, 1971. The rule provides that parties to a civil action or suit, may after summons has been issued, concur in a statement of the questions of law arising therein in the form of a special case for the opinion of the court. Rule 199 (3) makes further provision that upon the argument of such case, the court and the parties shall be at liberty to refer to the whole contents of such documents, and the... More
The respondent obtained a default judgment which it now clings on to for dear life resulting in this application for rescission of that default judgment.
The facts
In 2008, the parties voluntarily entered into an agreement wherein the respondent offered its land for development by the applicant. Some of the material terms of the parties’ agreement were that;
1. The applicant was obliged to service the whole designated area and provide sewer and water connection, storm water drains and culverts in addition to developing roads according to the specifications.
2. The applicant would commence servicing the land in issue within... More
This is an appeal against an arbitral decision declining jurisdiction to deal with the matter. In 2004 the Appellants were dismissed from employment. In 2006 their reinstatement was ordered by the Midlands Local Joint Committee. The decision to reinstate was affirmed by the Negotiating Committee after the Respondent appealed. Thereafter the Respondent noted an appeal against that decision in this Court. The appeal was noted on 14 June 2013. The Respondent did not comply with the order of reinstatement. The matter was referred for compulsory arbitration for quantification of damages. More
