An order that 1st Defendant in his capacity as the Executor in the estate of Pilate Moyo be ordered to transfer stand 1255 Dulibadzimu Township Beitbridge into the names of Plaintiff within 10 days of service of this order on 1st Defendant.
b) An order that should 1st Defendant fail to comply with (a) above, the Sheriff of Zimbabwe or his deputy be authorized to sign all the transfer papers in 1st Defendant’s stead in order to effect transfer of stand 1255 Dulibadzimu Township Beitbridge to the Plaintiff.
c) An order that 2nd Defendant pays the costs of suit.
The... More
1. This is an application for bail pending appeal against conviction and sentence. The applicant was arraigned before the Magistrates’ Court sitting at Hwange. The applicant and his co-accused who are not part of this application were charged with the crime of contravening section 82(1)(b) of the Parks and Wildlife Regulations S.I. 362/1990 as read with section 128(1)(b) of the Parks and Wildlife Act [Chapter 20:14]. It being alleged that on the 17 November 2021 at VID bus stop, Hwange, the applicant and his co-accused one or all of them unlawfully possessed six pieces of raw unmarked elephant ivory weighing... More
The plaintiff husband sued his wife for divorce on 20 September 2005. She entered her plea and counterclaim on 19 May 2006. The matter was referred to trial at the pre-trial conference held on 19 June 2007. The parties agreed at the pre-trial conference that their marriage had irretrievably broken down. They also agreed on the issues of custody, access to and the payment of school fees of the minor children of the marriage and on the distribution of all the movable property. The sole issue that was referred for trial was on the equitable distribution of the matrimonial home,... More
This is an Urgent Chamber Application wherein applicant seeks the following relief:-
“TERMS OF THE FINAL ORDER SOUGHT
That you show cause to this Honourable Court why a final order should not be made in the following terms:-.
(a) That the provisional order be and is hereby confirmed.
(b) That the termination of the mining agreement between the applicant and respondent be and is hereby confirmed.
(c) That the respondent be ordered to pay costs of suit on an attorney and client scale. More
This is an application brought in terms of article 34 (2) (b) (ii) of the Arbitration Act (Chapter 7:15) for an order setting aside an arbitration award on the basis that it is contrary to public policy. Applicant purchased a piece of rural land for purposes of extending its own boundaries and took title over the land by virtue of Deed of Transfer 1989/08 dated 25-09-2008. On that land, applicant produced a proposed subdivision of the whole land which it meant to construct multiple of smaller land parcels. A general map for the proposed subdivision was produced depicting and capturing... More
On 15 August 2005 the respondent entered into a written agreement of sale with one Tendai Mutasa for the sale of property namely a rural homestead situated in Mwoyoweshumba Village in Watsomba constituted of a five roomed house, 2 thatched kitchen huts, a large field measuring 3 hectares and a utility blair ablution. After the respondent paid Tendai Mutasa, Tendai Mutasa introduced respondent to the village head who in turn endorsed and approved the sale of the improvements and entered respondent’s name into the village head’s register. The respondent clearly stated that he bought the structures/improvement at the homestead and... More
The plaintiff and defendant are husband and wife. They got married customarily on 1 December 1993 and their marriage was solemnised in terms of the Marriage Act, [Cap 5:11] on 22 June 1994. They were blessed with three children all of whom are still minors. They have been experiencing marital problems since 1999. More
This is an Urgent Chamber Application. It was lodged in this court on 15 December 2021 at 1143 hours.
The interim and final relief sought have been formulated as follows by the applicant.
THE INTERIM ORDER GRANTED
(1) Pending the return date, the execution of the amended court order in the case undercover of case number HC 774/17 be and is hereby stayed with immediate effect.
(2) 1st and 3rd respondents be and are hereby interdicted and prohibited from undertaking or continuing to undertake processes and procedures towards the full execution of the amended court order in HC 774/17. More
: This matter came before me as an urgent application. After having sight of the opposing papers filed by the respondents I concluded that the matter was not urgent, and by agreement of the parties it was enrolled on my roll of opposed matters as all parties had filed all the necessary affidavits and heads of argument. More
The matter was placed before me as an application for an order. The application was filed on the basis of Section 89(1)(a) and Section 93(7)(b)(ii) of the Labour Act. The application was opposed. More
On 18 August 2017, the plaintiff issued summons against the defendant claiming the sum of US$13 238.00, it being an amount allegedly deposited with the defendant in her capacity as the treasurer of the plaintiff. It is alleged in the summons that defendant has failed, refused or neglected to pay over the deposited amount to the plaintiff on demand. More
MABHIKWA J: The applicant made this application in terms of Order 49 Rule 449 of the High Court Rules 1971 purportedly to seek the rescission of a judgement granted under case No. HC 803/19 on the ground that an error had been made in granting the judgement. She also sought an order for the removal of the 3rd respondent as Executrix Dative in the estate of the late Laiza Khumalo. More
At the conclusion of the trial in this matter, the parties requested to file written submissions. I directed that the plaintiff’s closing submissions be filed by 7 March 2013 while those of the defendant should be filed after that. I have only had sight of the defendant’s closing submissions but those of the plaintiff have not been brought to my attention. More
This matter was set down as a review at the instance of the applicant employee against a decision by the respondent employer where the employer had transferred the applicant to one of its stations.
On the set down date 12 May 2016 it was brought to the court’s attention that the applicant has since been dismissed from employment hence any decision on instant review would only be of academic relevance. In that regard the parties requested a chance to dialogue over that with a view to applicant withdrawing his review application on account of its academic nature. On 17 June... More
