The applicant issued summons claiming payment of the sum of US15 900-00, interest on the amount at the prescribed rate and costs of suit on attorney-client scale. The respondent entered an appearance to defend. The applicant then applied for summary judgment. More
This chamber application was opposed by the first respondent. I set it down for hearing on 21 July 2024. Applicant and Counsel for first respondent appeared. Applicant requested a postponement as he felt that his relatives had to be present. He indicated that he had not been aware of the set down date and only appeared because the Registrar of this court had called him on his cell phone. Counsel for the first respondent was not opposed to the application for postponement. I postponed the matter to 1 July 2024 at 1000hours. More
This is a chamber application for joinder wherein the applicant seeks to be joined as a party to the proceedings in Case No. HCH 884/24, a court application for review. The relief sought by the applicant is captured as follows:
“1. The application be and is hereby granted.
2. Applicant be and is hereby joined as 2nd respondent in HCH 884/24.
3. The Applicant be and is hereby ordered to file its opposing papers, if any, in HCH 884/24 within 5 days of the granting of this order.
4. The opposing respondents shall pay the costs of this application.” More
This is an urgent chamber application in which the applicants essentially seek stay of execution on of the order granted in case No. HC 2258/21 pending determination of a court application for the rescission of that order. The court application is yet to be filed. The application for rescission of judgment could not be filed prior to or at the time of the filing of the urgent chamber application owing to the Covid 19 induced lockdown and the Practice Direction issued pursuant thereto. The interim relief sought is for first respondent to be interdicted from interfering with second and third... More
In this matter applicants seeks leave to file a supplementary affidavit in Case No HC 3261/23 in terms of Rule 59(12) of the High Court Rules, 2021.
The founding affidavit was deposed to by the fourth applicant who is the mother to the first to third applicants. More
The plaintiffs issued summons against the defendants claiming the sum of US$402 000-00 being ‘excess of costs that the plaintiffs will pay for the construction of 3 villas on stand number 553 Quinnington Township Borrowdale’. The plaintiff further claimed interest on the above sum calculated at the prescribed rate plus costs of suit.
The second defendant gave notice in terms of the rules that, unless the summons were withdrawn, it would except thereto. The summons not having been withdrawn, the second defendant duly filed the exception simultaneously with a special plea. The second defendant excepted on the grounds that the... More
The plaintiff is a duly registered Estate Agent with the Estate Agent Council of Zimbabwe.
The defendant is a duly registered company in terms of the laws of Zimbabwe.
On the 5th May 2014 the plaintiff sued the defendant in this court claiming from the defendant:
1. Payment in the sum of $ 30 000.00 being agents’ commission for a property duly sold at the instance of the defendant.
2. Interest on the said $30 000.00 from the date of demand being the 28th of February 2013 to the date of payment in full.
3. Costs of suit. More
On 8 January 2010 the applicant filed this application seeking the following relief:
“It is ordered that:
1. The cancellation of the Lease Agreement between the parties be and is hereby confirmed.
2. The first respondent and all those claiming occupation of the property being No. 74 Douglas Road, Workington, Harare through it be and are hereby ordered to vacate the property forthwith failing which the Deputy Sheriff be and is hereby authorized to evict them at their expense.
3. That the respondents pay arrear rentals in the combined sum of US4 418-00 jointly and severally the one paying the... More
This is an appeal against the whole judgment of the High Court dated 3 October 2016. After hearing argument in the matter, we allowed the appeal and made the following order:
1. The appeal be and is hereby allowed.
2. The judgment of the court a quo is set aside and is substituted with the following, “The accused is found not guilty and is discharged.” More
This application followed a referral of the matter to this Court by the Magistrates Court in terms of s 24 (2) of the former Constitution of Zimbabwe (“the old Constitution”). More
This judgment is in respect of three matters which were consolidated for the purpose of the hearing. These are HC 1442/10, HC2480/10 and HC 6520/10. By agreement reached at the pre-trial conference, the citation embraced herein is what is to apply in respect of the three matters. At the pre-trial conference the parties agreed, among other things, that none of them has the right to represent the seventh defendant in these proceedings. This is so because what is at the centre of the dispute is the shareholding in that company which shareholding was the subject of a sale agreement between... More
The appellant was convicted by a regional magistrate on four counts of rape. He pleaded not guilty but was convicted on all four counts after a full trial. He was sentenced to 12 years imprisonment of which 4 years were suspended on conditions of good behaviour. The four counts were treated as one for purposes of sentence. More
This is an application for bail pending trial. At the hearing of the application I dismissed it ex tempore. The applicant has requested for full reasons. Here are they. More
This is an application for rescission of default judgment brought in terms of Order 9, rule 63, and sub rule 1 of the Rules of the High Court of Zimbabwe 1971. The applicants also seek an order that they be allowed to file their plea within ten days of the date of the order, and that each party bears its own costs. More
