“TERMS OF FINAL ORDER SOUGHT
1. That in the absence of legislation or a court order, 1st respondent is not entitled to take the law into his own hands and bring about an eviction of the applicants.
2. That respondents pay the costs of suit. More
This matter was placed before me under a certificate of urgency on 17 January 2008. I gave directions that it be heard the following day as I deemed it appropriate that the rules of court be dispensed with in the interests of achieving justice in this particular matter. At the hearing Mr Takaendesa, for first respondent, raised two procedural points in limine regarding the lack of appropriate certification of urgency on behalf of the applicants. His second point was that the applicants ought to have anticipated the rule nisi rather than approach this court through the Chamber Book. More
This is an application for a declaratory order in the following terms:
“ 1. Applicant be and is hereby declared the rightful lessee of Plot Number 227 measuring 10,288 hactares(sic) situate at Rainham Farm.
2. The subdivision of Plot Number 227 situate at Rainham Farm into various smaller units or the downsizing of Plot Number 227 situate at Rainham Farm from 10,288 hactares(sic) to 3 hactares(sic) by the Respondent be and is hereby declared unlawful.
3. Applicant and/or its agents, assignees, representatives be and are hereby declared to have unhindered access to a certain piece of land situate at Rainham... More
This is an application for a declaratory order. The applicant seeks an order that it be declared the registered holder of mining rights known as Miralto 32, that the first respondent be ordered to vacate Miralto 32 forthwith plus costs of suit. More
This is an appeal against the magistrates Court’s refusal to admit the appellant to bail pending trial. The appeal is made in terms of s 121 (1) of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act [Chapter9:23] (“the CPEA”) as read with r 6 (1) of the High Court of Zimbabwe Bail Rules, 1971. More
The discovery of diamonds at Chiadzwa in Marange District brought fortunes to some families based in the eastern parts of Zimbabwe. The parties herein being a good example. Theirs is a “rags to riches” story where they moved from occupying a single rented room to ultimately buying a house in a plush suburb in Mutare as well as owning thirteen (13) motor vehicles among them top of the range. More
The applicant, a company incorporated according to the laws of Zimbabwe, contracted the second respondent to execute debt collection services from various debtors on its behalf. The second respondent is also a company which was registered in terms of the country’s laws. The first respondent is a director of the second respondent. More
The respondent was an employee of the applicant. On 30 January, 2009 the parties concluded a mutual agreement to terminate the respondent’s contract of employment. More
The applicant seeks the reinstatement of its appeal which was automatically regarded as abandoned and deemed dismissed by the Registrar on 29 August 2024 for failure to pay security for costs in case No. SC 448/24.
[2] It seeks the following order:
“1. The application for reinstatement of an appeal in case number SC 448/24 be and is hereby granted.
2. The appeal in case number SC 448/24 be and is hereby accordingly reinstated.
3. The failure to pay security for costs in time in case number SC 448/24 be and is hereby condoned.
4. Leave be and is hereby... More
In this matter the plaintiff a company duly incorporated and registered in terms of the laws of the Republic of South Africa sued the first, second and third defendants jointly and severally the one paying the others tobe absolved for (a) payment of the sum of ZAR 716 250.00 (b) interest at the prescribed rate from 1 April 2013 to the date of full and final payment and (c) costs of suit on a higher scale. More
At the commencement of this matter Mr Mpofu moved for the condonation of the late filing of the respondent’s heads of argument. Mr Chidziva was gracious enough to consent to the application which I then granted More
The facts in this case are largely common cause and can be summarised as follows:-
Having been furnished with a quotation dated 31 May 2006 for the manufacture and supply of tanks from the defendant, the plaintiff formerly placed an order with the defendant for the supply of same. The plaintiff initially paid a 60% deposit which was followed by the payment of the remaining balance to complete the full purchase price. More
Mr V. Mapepa for the Respondents applied that the matter be stood down to 1100 hours to enable the Legal Practitioner representing Respondents to avail herself at Court. Mr Mapepa submitted that such Legal Practitioner was attending a Pre – Trial conference at the High Court. No evidence was tendered in support of such submissions. Let me warn all legal practitioners to start respecting this court as a superior court. Most lawyers believe they can simply get a file from a fellow colleague and come before this court to inform this court to either postpone or stand down a matter. More
This is an appeal against the judgment of the Labour Court (the Court a quo) which allowed the respondent access to the appellant’s employees purportedly in terms of s 46 (a) of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01] (the Act). At the close of submissions by both counsel the court issued an order with reasons to follow. More
This is an appeal against the judgment of the Labour Court (the Court a quo) which allowed the respondent access to the appellant’s employees purportedly in terms of s 46 (a) of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01] (the Act). At the close of submissions by both counsel the court issued an order with reasons to follow. The order is couched in the following terms:
“In the result it is ordered as follows:
1. The appeal be and is hereby allowed with costs.
2. The judgment of the court a quo being LC/MT/25/22 be and is hereby set aside and substituted... More
