This is an application for a review of criminal proceedings which are pending before the first respondent, in the Regional Court, Eastern Division, Harare. What has necessitated the application whilst the criminal proceedings are still pending is an interlocutory application that was made by the applicant for referral of the proceedings to the Constitutional Court. More
The applicants are members of Citizens Coalition for Change (“CCC”) - a political party which plays opposition politics in Zimbabwe. All ten of them and nine others who are not part of this application were elected into Parliament on the CCC party ticket on 1 April 2022. The colour YELLOW is, in a large measure, associated with the dress code of members of CCC. They wear yellow shirts, dresses and other forms of dress during meetings, rallies or other gatherings of the party. Yellow, judicial notice is taken, would appear to be the members’ uniform, so to speak. More
The brief background giving rise to these applications are as follows, on 10 December 2020, first, second and third Respondents instituted summons for defamation against Applicant under case number HC 7528/20. Applicant then raised an exception and a special plea in bar in those proceedings, which Justice Manzunzu dismissed. Aggrieved by the dismissal, applicant made an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court which application was dismissed by MANZUNZU J in default. Applicant then approached the Supreme Court under SC 143/23 which application was later withdrawn. Applicant then made another application under SC 274/23 which was struck off... More
The background facts to this application are as follows. The applicant is the Secretary General of the Movement for Democratic Change, a political party with representation in the country’s legislature and the executive arm of government. The first respondent is the magistrates who heard the appeal lodged by the applicant against the decision of the second respondent. The second respondent is a police officer. He is the Officer Commanding Harare Central District and, for the purposes s 26 of the Public Order and Security Act [Cap 11:17], he is in that capacity, the Regulating Authority of Harare Central District. More
This is an appeal against the sentence imposed upon the appellant by the magistrates court pursuant to a conviction on two counts of robbery as defined in s 126 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23]. More
In April 2007, the plaintiff issues summons against the defendant claiming the sum of $55 979 315-00, being the replacement value of the hydraulic pipes and fittings. The suit was defended. More
The appellant was dismissed from the respondent’s employment following disciplinary proceedings for theft. This was a breach of paragraph 5.3.11 of the applicable Code. His internal appeals failed. Aggrieved by the dismissal, the appellant appeals to this Court on the following grounds:
“1. The appellant was not given sufficient time to prepare for the hearing. She was served with the Notification to attend a Hearing on the 4th March 2011 (Friday) for Monday 7th March 2011 at 0900 hrs. Effectively, our client was given less than twenty four hours to prepare for the hearing as the notice was only served... More
On 29th August 2011 the Honourable C Kabasa made an arbitration award. In terms thereof, he dismissed Appellant’s claims and referred the matter to Respondent’s disciplinary committee for a hearing. Appellant was aggrieved by the award. He then appealed to this Court against the award. More
This matter was placed before me as an urgent chamber application. The applicant seeks the following provisional order.
TERMS OF THE INTERIM RELIEF GRANTED
That pending the final determination of this application, applicant is granted the following interim relief;
1. The 4th respondent or any of his authorised officers, assignees or agents, be and are hereby ordered to suspend the sale in execution of stand No 174 Banket Township set for 8 September 2023.
2. Costs of this application shall be determined in the application for consolidation case no. HC 6659/20. More
The plaintiff in the main action instituted summons against the respondents seeking a declaratory and consequential relief. The declaratory claim was for the nullification of the agreement of sale between the 1st and 2nd defendant, as well as, the registration of stand 174 Banket Township, Banket into the 1st defendant’s name. In addition, the plaintiff sought the upholding of the plaintiff’s agreement of sale and the restoration of the property into the into the original owner’s name, Cleopas Hove, upon the reinstatement of the late Cleopas Hove’s Deed No 4439/97, alongside other ancillary issues. More
The Applicant was aggrieved and has approached this Court for direct access in terms of s 167 (5) (a) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe. The Applicant submits that three of his fundamental rights enshrined in Chapter 4 of the Constitution were infringed by the Supreme Court in SC 09/20 through judgment number SC-24-22. As already noted, the three rights that the applicant alleges were infringed are the right to the protection of the law as enshrined in terms of s 56 (1) of the Constitution, the right to a fair hearing enshrined in s 69 (2) of the Constitution and... More
The parties have been in and out of the courts embroiled in ferocious battles over the ownership, possession and occupation of a certain piece of property commonly known as the Remainder of Subdivision C of Plot 6 of Lots 190, 191, 193, 194 and 195 of Highlands Estate of Welmoed also known as number 41 Ridgeway North, Highlands, Harare (the property). More
This is an appeal against the whole judgment of the High Court (the court a quo) dated 29 November 2023 in which it granted the respondent’s application for the eviction of the appellant from a property known as subdivision C of Lot 6 of Lots 190,191,193,194 and 195 Highlands Estates of Welmoed also known as No 41 Ridgeway North Highlands, Harare, hereinafter referred to as the property. More
When this matter resumed on 16 January 2023, the matter could not be heard. The reason being that counsel for the Plaintiff made an oral application for the recusal of this court. He emphasized then that the reason for the recusal had absolutely nothing to do with this Lordship’s integrity or bias on the Lordship’s part but premised upon first Defendant’s conduct in causing another Lordship to recuse himself, and the Plaintiff had developed a discomfort to have this matter presided over by this Court. The counsels for the first Defendant challenged the application on the basis that they had... More
The parties were married on 5 December 1998 under the then Marriage Act [Chapter 5:11] now [Chapter 5:17].
Plaintiff’s evidence was that he moved out from where he was residing with defendant as he saw no reason to stay, for defendant was adulterous and the two were no longer living as husband and wife.
Defendant on the other refuted the allegation of adultery. She is however agreeable to a decree of divorce being granted. There is only one issue that stands to be resolved namely whether or not Stand Number 6033 Westlea, Harare is matrimonial property. If so how should... More
