The plaintiff issued summons on 15 October 2021 for the sharing of movable property only, under general law on the basis that though he had an unregistered customary law union with the defendant, their lifestyle was more in accordance with general law. The movables he wanted allocated to the defendant included two chairs, a kitchen table, a 5 kg gas canister; a two plate gas stove, a DSTV decoder, curtains, blankets, a sewing machine and a three quarter mattress. To himself he wanted to be allocated 2 chairs, a 32 inch television, a solar panel, a solar battery, a 20... More
The applicant is in custody on charges of rape as defined in s 65 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Cap. 9:23] and extortion as defined in s 134 (1) (a) of the Act. The allegations against him are that on 27 August 2013 he accosted and confronted the complaint and her boyfriend as they werewalking home around 1930 hours.Impersonating the police the accused arrested them on trumped up charges of loitering in a public place for purposes of prostitution. He then relieved the complainants of theircell phones a NokiaAsha 201and Samsung J700. More
This is an appeal against a determination by the Minister for Labour and Social Services of 19 December 2013, in which he approved a proposed retrenchment package for the appellant More
The plaintiff seeks to recover from the two defendants, jointly or severally, the sum of US$50 000 being damages for malicious prosecution. He claims that the defendants maliciously set in motion a process that led to his arrest on allegations of fraud and his subsequent prosecution in the magistrates Court. He alleges in his declaration that the first defendant made the report of fraud against him to the police while fully knowing that there was no probable cause for doing so nor did he entertain any reasonable belief in the truthfulness of the information which he supplied to the police. More
The dispute between the parties arose from the first respondent’s failure to settle his indebtedness to the appellant. On 15 October 2018, the first respondent signed an acknowledgment of debt acknowledging his indebtedness to the appellant in the sum of US$26 100.00. The acknowledgment of debt stated that the debt was due for payment and that in the event of legal proceedings being instituted, the first respondent would pay the costs of suit on a legal practitioner and client scale. The first respondent did not pay the debt. The appellant issued summons in case number HC 10118/18 for the payment... More
On 12 October 2022, the applicant filed this urgent chamber application for stay of execution pending rescission of a default judgment. The relief sought is set forth in the draft provisional order as follows:
“TERMS OF THE FINAL ORDER 1. That the application for stay of execution pending appeal be and hereby granted.
2. Execution of the Court order granted on the 21st of September 2022 be and hereby stayed/postponed pending the hearing of HC 6852/22.
3. That the costs of this application shall be borne by the 1st - 4th respondents if they oppose this application.
INTERIM RELIEF GRANTED... More
On 30 September 2022 the applicant entered into a joint venture and partnership agreement with the respondent. The purpose of the partnership was to conduct mining operations on certain mining gold claims being registration numbers 46081-09 and 46814. The applicant contends that the partnership agreement had been terminated by mutual consent. The termination was caused by the fact that the mining venture proved unviable and unprofitable. The dispute turns on the contention by the applicant that it is being refused to remove its equipment from the mining claims. More
This is an urgent chamber application for a provisional order interdicting the first respondent from performing his duties as Corporate Rescue Manager for the third respondent and for him not to interfere with the business operations of the third respondent. While the interim interdict herein is being sought pending the return date, the confirmation of the provisional order is being sought pending determination of an application instituted by the applicant under case no. HCH 587/24. In HCH587/24 the applicant herein is seeking the setting aside of the first respondent’s appointment and his removal as Corporate Rescue Manager of the third... More
The applicant is a South African national ordinarily resident in the Republic of South Africa. He is facing charges of theft as defined in section 113 (1) of the Criminal Law Codification and Reform Act (Chapter 9:23). The allegations are that on the 25th of June 2019 he stole a truck, an Iveco Tracker, registration number HXP 425 MP from a parking bay in South Africa, by means of forged and fraudulent documents. On the following day, a report was made to the police. A tracking device on the vehicle was activated and indicated that the vehicle was crossing into... More
The plaintiff approached the honourable seeking the following order;
a) an order that the first defendant transfer to first plaintiff the subdivide Stand Number 6000 Bannockburn Township, Certificate of Compliance Approval Number CC/WR/16/2021, Permit and Plan Number SD/WR/01/21 being of the remaining extent of Bannockburn measuring 72.89 hectares held under Deed of Transfer Number 7778/86. More
The Appellant lodged his appeal against the determination by the Negotiating Committee of the Commercial Sector handed down on 13 June, 2011, reversing an earlier decision by the Mashonaland Local Committee and upholding the employer’s decision to dismiss him from employment. More
This is a dispute involving the sale of mining claims. Plaintiff believed that he was entering into a very good deal with the 1st defendant being represented by the 2nd defendant. In actual fact, it turned out to be a very bad deal for him. The drama unfolded on 15 January 2007 when plaintiff and 1st defendant entered into a written agreement of sale in respect of four (4) gold mining claims being Gazemba 105 to 108, Copper Queen under Gweru Mining District.
The material terms of the agreement were as follows:
1. That the seller (plaintiff herein) sold to... More
Litigants are discouraged from taking advantage of the court’s intention to develop the jurisprudence of the law of review of proceedings of inferior courts and tribunals by making every effort to sneak onto the roll of urgent matters applications which do not meet the requirements of urgency. A fortiori when they, for some unspecified reasons, refrain from filing their urgent applications in terms of the law which relates to applications of the mentioned nature. They should not, in other words, read a case and, without applying their mind to it, entertain the view that the circumstances of that case, the... More
On 21 May 2021, the first respondent filed an application for a declaration in this court. This application was served on applicant’s legal practitioners on the same day. The legal practitioners failed to reach the applicants due to network problems. Applicants who were not aware of this development did not make any personal efforts to communicate with their legal practitioners as they believed there was no urgency to do so since there were no outstanding matters after the first respondent had withdrawn a matter she had filed against applicants under HC 6404/20. More
