The facts of this matter are not really in dispute. They are that the appellant was accused of stealing certain items at the work place by a colleague. More
The 2nd respondent instituted proceedings for divorce and ancillary relief in case No. HC 1195/04 against the applicant. The applicant filed a counter-claim in which he cited the 1st respondent as the 2nd defendant in that matter. He claimed from the 1st respondent adultery damages alleging that the 1st respondent was the man with whom the second respondent had committed adultery. During the pre-trial conference, the court queried the propriety of joining the 1st respondent in a counter-claim. The applicant now seeks, in terms of Order 13 Rule 87 of the High Court Rules, to join the 1st respondent to... More
The applicant is Stewart Phillip Cranswick a minority shareholder in the first respondent. The first respondent is Meikles limited a publicly listed company incorporated in terms of the laws of Zimbabwe. The second respondent is Meikles Consolidated Holdings (Private) Limited, a corporate registered in terms of the laws of Zimbabwe and the largest shareholder (holding 48,38% of the issued share capital) in the first respondent. The third respondent is John Ralph Thomas Moxon, a director in the second respondent and a chairman of the first respondent. The fourth respondent is the Zimbabwe Stock Exchange, a corporation set up in terms... More
At the hearing of this matter Respondent raised two points in lime which are the subject of this judgment. The first is that Applicant is barred for non-compliance with Rule 19 (1) of this Court’s Rules SI 59/2006, having failed to file and serve heads of argument within the stipulated time. The second is that Applicant did not follow the prescribed format of an application set out in the said rules as Form LC1 was not completed. More
A point in limine raised in this matter is that of locus standi, more specifically being that a grandparent has no standing in our law to seek shared access with the biological parent who has custody of the children. The application before me is made under the rubric of the “best interests of the child” under common law and as provided for in our Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (No 20) Act of 2013. The trigger to the application arises from events following the death of applicant’s daughter who died on the 15th of January 2022. She left behind two minor... More
This is an urgent application for provisional relief staying execution of a judgment of this court granted on 26 March 2012 pending the hearing of a rescission of judgment application which has been filed by the applicant. More
This is an appeal against the decision of the High Court upholding an arbitral award handed down by the third respondent on 10 July 2018 in terms of which the appellant’s claim was dismissed for want of prosecution and the first respondent’s counterclaim was granted. More
The applicant and the first respondent are mining entities registered in terms of the laws of Zimbabwe. A mining dispute arose between the two entities and it was adjudicated upon by the second respondent. The second respondent’s decision was taken up on review by the applicant and it is pending before this court. Further disturbances occurred on the disputed mining site prompting the applicant to approach this court on an urgent basis. The relief sought is set out in the draft provisional order as follows: More
The appellant and the second respondent, who are both in the mining business, locked horns over a dispute concerning mining claims. The first respondent is the Provincial Mining Director for Mashonaland East. More
This is an application for a compelling order. The relief sought is couched as follows;
“1. The 1st Respondent be and is hereby ordered to prepare an agreement of sale for stand number 210 Mt Pleasant encompassing the terms recorded in the offer letter dated 15 December 2016 addressed by the Applicant and signed by the 2nd Respondent.
2. The second Respondent be and is hereby directed to sign the agreement of sale between the Applicant and the 1st respondent as directed paragraph 1 above.
3. The 2nd Respondent processes and signs all such documents as may be necessary to... More
The plaintiff seeks the eviction of the 1st defendant and all those claiming occupation through him from residential premises known as Number 2312 Msasa Drive , Marlborough, Harare ‘hereinafter referred to as the property’ . He also seeks costs of suit on an attorney and client scale. When the1st defendant received the eviction summons, he entered appearance to defend and filed a plea. Subsequently an application for joinder of the 2nd defendant was made and granted. The 2nd defendant also opposed the claim. Although the plaintiff seeks no order as against the 2nd defendant, the 2nd defendant was joined to... More
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
