The applicant herein is a limited liability company incorporated in the United Kingdom. The three respondents companies are incorporated in Zimbabwe. BP Africa Limited (BP Africa) and Shell Petroleum Company Limited (Shell Petroleum) are corporate entities based in the United Kingdom. They are equal shareholders in both the second and third respondents, while the latter companies are equal shareholders in the first respondent. More
The applicant approached this court on an urgent basis seeking the relief for the return of motor vehicles based on the principles of spoliation order or vindicatory action. The applicant’s relief was couched in the following way:
“1. The 1st up to 199th respondents shall:-
1.1 In respect of unloaded and empty vehicles constituting horses and trailers belonging to the applicant which are in their possession forthwith return such vehicles to the applicant’s premises at No. 116 Dagenham Road, Willowvale, Harare upon the service of this order on the 200threspondent or their legal practitioners.
1.2 In respect of loaded vehicles... More
The facts of this case are lengthy and fairly complex, but have been fairly summarised by GOWORA J in judgment no. SC 43/14. There is no point in regurgitating them. However, I will restate some of the facts for the purpose of providing a context to this judgment. More
This case has been triggered by the developments in a case involving the respondent in the Magistrates Court which was heard and concluded in favour of the respondent on 11 October 2011. The lower court case bears reference number MC 16435/11. More
Applicant seeks an order declaring two agreements of sale of land between itself and first respondent invalid. It also prays for the refund of purchase price in the sum of US$220,000. The application is resisted by first and fourth respondents. The rest of the respondents elected to stay out of the broil. I will advert to the role and relevance of the respective parties as the judgment unfolds. More
This case can best be described as an attempt to “close the stables when the horse has bolted”.
This is an urgent Chamber Application seeking the stray of execution of a High Court Order granted on 16th December 2022 under case number HC 5202/22. The urgent chamber application also seeks that the second respondent be interdicted from selling Applicant’s goods that were placed under judicial attachment on the strength of the Court Order in question and the subsequent writ of execution. More
This is an appeal against the whole judgment of the Labour Court of Zimbabwe dated 14 July 2018, wherein an application for condonation for failure to file an application for leave to appeal in time was dismissed. More
These are the reasons.
The applicant filed a written application for leave to appeal my judgment under HH 417/18 wherein I found its urgent chamber application as not urgent. I ordered that it be removed from the roll of urgent matters. I also ordered that the applicant pays the first and second respondents’ costs on the higher scale.
The facts of the matter are set out in my judgment under HH 417/18.
The determining factor in an application for leave to appeal is the existence of prospects of success on appeal. More
This is an application for stay of execution of orders of the Magistrates Court in case No. 255/12 dated 9 and 23 February 2012.
The background to the application is that on 5 January 2012, the applicant filed an application seeking the ejectment of the respondents from No. 144 Nelson Mandela Avenue, Harare (the premises). The applicant alleged in the application that it is in occupation of No 142/4 Nelson Mandela Avenue, Harare pursuant to a lease agreement with a company called Zeolite Investments (Pvt) Ltd dated 22 March 2011. Prior to the conclusion of the lease agreement, the premises... More
At the hearing of this matter I denied respondent the indulgence to file a notice of response belatedly. The matter proceeded in terms of Rule 22 (b) (i). The appeal was granted and the arbitral award was set aside. The following are the reasons for that decision. More
n an action which it filed with the court on 18 February 2016, the applicant sued the respondent. It claimed from the respondent:
(a) payment of $14 7698.14 which it said was for:
(i) catering services it rendered to the respondent for the period 2012 to 2015 – and
(ii) collection Commission at the rate of 10% of the principal debt;
(b) interest at the prescribed rate per annum – and
(c) costs of suit. More
This matter was filed under a certificate of urgency with this court on the 25th July 2022. The parties appeared before me on the 3rd of August 2022 to argue the matter. The applicant seeks an order in the following terms:
“Interim relief sought
1. It is hereby ordered that the applicant be allowed occupation, use and access to a mine registered under certificate of registration number 30223 registered on 5 October 2015, in the name of Silobela Community Development Trust in respect of a mine named Turtle 54.
2. The 4threspondent with all those who act through him on... More
The parties were married to each other in terms of the Marriage Act Chapter 5:11 in Harare on 23 August 2008 and the marriage still subsists. There are two minor children of the marriage both boys, one of whom is 8 years old and the other is 6 years. The marriage has irretrievably broken down and the plaintiff has filed for divorce, custody of the minor children of the marriage Owethu Reabetsoe Dlodlo born on 4 November 2010 and Kabongwe Otsile Dlodlo born on 12 January 2012. Plaintiff terndered reasonable access to the defendant. She also claimed maintenance of R20... More
MAKONESE J: This is an application for a summary judgment against the respondent. The applicant seeks the relief of rei vindicatio in the following terms;
“Respondent and all those claiming through her be and are hereby ordered to forthwith vacate House Number 54a Leander Ave, Hillside, Bulawayo also known as the Remaining Extent of Subdivision 2 of Lot 63A Hillside situate in the district of Bulawayo.” More
