The respondent is a registered legal practitioner carrying on the business and practice of a legal practitioner under the name of Muchandibaya and Associates. He is a senior partner in the firm. More
The Deposit Protection Corporation filed the present application in its capacity as the liquidator of Afrasia Bank Zimbabwe Limited. The liquidator sought an order for the impeachment of first respondent’s share repurchase scheme codified under a Binding Memorandum of Agreement executed on 5 September 2013. This agreement was signed by Kingdom Bank Limited, Afrasia Kingdom Zimbabwe Limited, Crustmoon Investments (Pvt) Ltd, Afrasia Kingdom Holdings Limited, Nigel Muranganwa Kudzai Chanakira, Afrasia Holdings Limited and Charles Wawn. More
This matter was placed before me on my opposed roll of matters.
The facts are these. In 2014, the first respondent which is the Zimbabwe Board Examinations Council made a series of investments by way of fixed-deposits with the applicant bank. They were as follows:-
a) US$5000,000-00, on the 19th May 2014 maturing on the 18th June 2014 with a maturity value of US$505,416-67;
b) US$500,000-00 on the 22nd May 2014 maturing on the 23rd June 2014 with a maturity value of US$505,777-78; and
c) US$500,000-00 on the 27th May 2014 maturing on the 26th June 2014 with a maturity... More
This matter came before me as an urgent application. With the consent of the parties and at the request of the parties that I issue a final order in the matter, I gave directions for further affidavits and heads of argument to be filed by the parties and thereafter heard the matter. More
On 23 January 2012, the applicant issued summons against the respondent (first defendant in the main action) and Messrs Manase and Manase Legal Practitioners as the second defendant. The action was for:-
“(a) payment of USD 9 643-20 due and owing to the plaintiff
(b) Interest on the said amount at the prescribed rate calculated from
the 21st of September 2011 to the date of full and final payment both dates inclusive.
(c) Costs of suit”. More
On 6 November, 2000 the first respondent, Tecla Mvembe (“Tecla”) sold to Max Management (Private) Limited (“Max”) a certain piece of land called 60 A Newwalk, Woodlands Road of Hilton of Subdivision A of Waterfalls (“the property”). The property is situated in the District of Salisbury. It is 25, 0532 hectares in extent. More
This is an application for rescission of two judgments entered against the applicant in case No. HC 6759/2000 and case No HC 6442/00 both granted on 6 February 2002 in favour of the 1st and 2nd respondents respectively. The matters had been consolidated into one by an order of the court granted on 16 January 2001 More
The first respondent is the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission, which is an independent commission tasked with running electoral processes in Zimbabwe. The second is the first respondent’s Chief Elections Officer who is in charge of the first respondent’s operations.
The appellants filed a joint notice of appeal on 25 June 2023 in terms of s 46 (19)(b) of the Electoral Act [Chapter 2:13] as read with rules 10 and 11 of the Electoral (Applications, Appeals and Petitions) Rules, 1995, Statutory Instrument 74 A, 1995.
The appeal is opposed by the respondents in terms of r 12 of the Electoral (Applications, Appeals... More
This application will be better understood against the background that follows. The facts of this matter appear in the founding papers, opposing affidavit of 2nd respondent and the submissions made by Mr Demo counsel for the Speaker of the Parliament of Zimbabwe (Speaker). More
The plaintiff and the first to the seventh defendants are families claiming entitlement to ascend the Zvimba Chieftainship. They are all descendants of Neiteve Chihobvu the founder of the Zvimba chieftainship. More
This is an application for dismissal, for want of prosecution, of an application for review in case number HC 3299/15 (“the main matter”).
The instant application was brought in terms of Order 32 Rule 236 (3) (b). After hearing argument from both counsel on the 12th July 2018 I gave the following order;
“1. The application be and is hereby dismissed.
2. There is no order as to costs.”
On the 17th July 2018 I received, through the Registrar, a written request for the reasons for the order. These are the reasons:
The following facts are common cause. Respondent filed... More
This is an application for specific performance in terms of Order 32 of the Old High Court Rules 1971. Applicants are claiming conveyancing mandates over certain properties belonging to 2nd respondent. In the alternative applicants claim 80% fees premised off a conveyancing tariff SI 24/2013. More
The applicant is a registered Trust. The applicant claims to have purchased a sizeable number of immovable properties in Harare from the first respondent on 18 November, 2018 for a total purchase price of USD $1650.00. The sale was reduced to writing in an agreement in duly signed on behalf of both parties. The applicant has petitioned the court for an order to compel the first respondent to transfer the properties to the applicant against payment of the purchase price of USD$1650 000.00. The first respondent opposes the application and prays for its dismissal with costs. It has described this... More
The facts giving rise to this application are mainly common cause. The applicant and the respondent were formerly husband and wife. A decree of divorce was granted in this court on 5 August 2010. The applicant has approached this court alleging that the respondent is in contempt of this order and applies for relief in the following terms: More
On 23 June 2014 the first respondent issued summons out of the magistrates’ court against the appellant, as the first defendant, and the secondrespondent, asthe second defendant, jointly and severally, one paying the other to be absolved. More
