The matter was placed before me as an appeal against the decision of the N E C Appeals Committee. The Appellant is the former employer of the Respondent. More
On 28 July 2005, the applicant filed a court application in terms of Order 33 of the Rules of the High Court of Zimbabwe, 1971. The application was for a review of the proceedings and decision of the respondent, handed down on 18 July 2005, denying the respondent registration as a media service provider in terms of the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, [Chapter 10:27]. The grounds given in the application for the review were procedural irregularity and bias on the part of the Chairperson of the respondent. More
The applicant is a legal practitioner and senior partner at the law firm of Musunga& Associates which cherishes its domicile in Harare, Zimbabwe. The respondent is the regulating authority governing the activities of legal practitioners in this jurisdiction. The applicant has made an approach to this court in terms of Order 33 Rule 256 of the High Court of Zimbabwe Rules, 1971 seeking a review of the decision of the respondent handed down on 14 July 2010 in which he was found guilty of professional misconduct and “reprimanded and warned to always act as a diligent conveyancer.” More
In this case, the plaintiff seeks the following order;
a. That the defendants and all those claiming occupation through them be and are hereby ejected from a certain piece of land situate in the district of Salisbury called stand 2133 Bluff Hill Township 1180 Bluff Hill Township measuring 810 square metres registered in favour of the plaintiff under deed of registration number 5553/2000 also known as 2133, Area D, Westgate, Harare. More
This is an urgent chamber application for an interim interdict, in particular for what is commonly referred to as an anti-dissipation interdict. This form of an interdict is a summary order meant to preserve assets by restraining their disposal pending the determination of a dispute involving the parties. The dispute pending is an action matter Case No. HC1349/24 initiated by the applicant against the first respondent. More
In March, 2008 the plaintiff and the defendant concluded an agreement in terms of which the plaintiff paid Z$2 750 000 000 000 (two trillion seven hundred and fifty billion dollars) for 2 200 x 195R14 brand new tyres which the defendant allegedly agreed to deliver by 2 March, 2008. To date, the defendant has only delivered 200 tyres leaving a balance of 2000 tyres. The current market value of the tyres is pegged at US$100 per tyre. In the event the plaintiff is claiming delivery of the outstanding tyres, alternatively US$200 000-00 representing the current market value of the... More
The plaintiff’s claim against the defendant is for specific performance in the form of delivery of 2000 x 195 R 14 inch tyres within fourteen days of date of judgment, alternatively payment of US$2000 000-00 being the estimated value of the tyres at US$100-00 each. Interest on the above sum and costs of suit are also claimed. More
DUBE-BANDA J: This is a court application for a declaratory order. Applicant seek an order couched in the following terms, that:
1. The registration of the estate of the late Maxwell Joseph Mukanganise under DRBY 1744/01 is declared null and void.
2. The transfer of the house number 76-2332 Mpopoma, Bulawayo effected into the 1st respondent’s be and is hereby reversed to the estate late Maxwell Joseph Mukanganise.
3. The 2nd respondent be and is hereby ordered to reopen the estate of the late Maxwell Joseph Mukanganise for the executor dative and the administration of estate with the involvement of... More
This is an Urgent Chamber Application in terms of Rule 57 (2) (a) of the High Court Rules 2021, for an interdict against the respondents pending the finalization of the matter under HC 2528/22. More
The applicant Athos Proestos and the first respondent Christalleni Proestos are brother and sister. Their dispute lies in the validity of their mother’s will which accorded Christalleni Proestos property known as known as stand 12895 Salisbury Township also known as number 94 Churchill Avenue, Gun Hill, Harare, Zimbabwe. The will also made her an executor of the estate. Applicant’s complaint is that their parents’ estates were fraudulently registered by Christalleni on the strength of that fraudulent will, having torn up their mother’s will of 2000 which granted the property equally to both of them. In her capacity as executor, Christalleni... More
MABHIKWA J: This matter appeared before me where the applicant was seeking simply an order that respondent be ordered to release funds that were due to applicant which funds should be used to operationalize the business of Security Mills.
The applicant’s claim in simple terms, was that 1st respondent (Mr B. Sengweni) is a trustee of the 2nd respondent company as constituted in terms of a court order granted under cover of case number HC 2839/18. He is in charge of the matters of the said 2nd respondent company which is under a scheme of arrangement. More
This is an urgent chamber application. It pits, on the one side, one George Musanhu (“George”) fronting a trust formed by himself, the Aube Musanhu Family Trust (“the Trust”), which is cited as the applicant. On the other side is one Chipo Munguma (“Chipo”). What is sought is spoliation. Through George the Trust says it has been despoiled of a certain sugar cane farm in Chiredzi, namely Subdivision 5 of Farm 7 and 8 Hippo Valley, one of those resettlement farms by Government under its land reform programme. More
This was meant to be a criminal appeal. It did not proceed. The appellant asked for my recusal. I obliged. The matter was removed from the roll. My Brother, MAWADZE J and I, felt it unprofitable to get embroiled in the merits of an application for recusal. But our decision in this regard should not be taken as having set a precedent. We avoided tussling with Counsel purely so that justice might be seen to be done. The reasons for seeking my recusal were nebulous. More
This is an application for review in terms of ss 92EE (1) of the Labour Act , Chapter 28:01 ARW rule 20(1) of the Labour Court Rules 2017(the Rules), against the proceedings of the 1st Respondent (Designated officer) that was conducted on 13 November and concluded on the 24 November 2023. More
