The Plaintiffs issued summons on 18 May 2020 against the Defendant seeking an order:
1) Declaring that the Defendant is no longer the Archbishop of the first Plaintiff.
2) For the eviction of the Defendant and all those claiming occupation through him from The Acts of the Resurrection of Apostolic Faith in Zimbabwe (Kumuka Kweva Apostora Church), Shinje Business Centre, Guruve.
3) Interdicting the Defendant from using the Archbishop’s Regalia, the church vessels and utensils used for Passover (Holy Communion) and taking with him church assets and property such as chairs, roofing iron and asbestos sheets, water tanks, water pumps,... More
Accused faces a charge murder, it being alleged that on the 16th of November 2020, he assaulted the deceased Katarina Mupasi and thereby causing her death. Accused pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity. The state counsel accepted that plea and the parties drew a statement of agreed facts which was tendered and marked exhibit 1. The state counsel also tendered the post mortem report and the psychiatrist’s report as well as the alleged weapon which is a steel wheelbarrow handle which were all duly marked. More
The cause of action in casu is one of unjust enrichment and arises from the following facts: The defendant, who is an importer of goods for sale in Zimbabwe, depends on authorised dealers for the requisite foreign currency in his business. On 21 March 2001 the defendant instructed the plaintiff, an authorised dealer, to effect payment of ZAR372 062-80 to its supplier, namely Kimberley Clark of South Africa (Pty) Limited (Kimberley). The plaintiff, through a telegraphic transfer, effected the said payment on 4 April 2001. More
The applicant was born in Dominica in the West Indies in 1950.
He studied medicine in the United Kingdom ending up specialising as a physician.
During that time he met and fell in love with a Zimbabwean woman who was studying
nursing and midwifery at the same hospital he was attached to. The two married and
eventually established a home in Zimbabwe in 1982. In Zimbabwe, the applicant
obtained a permanent residence permit and has lived and practiced his profession in this
country since 1982. He applied for citizenship, which was not granted More
The applicant approached this court seeking a vindicatory order to recover possession and control of property called the Remainder of Umzari situate in the District of Lomagundi under Deed of Transfer 169/69 (hereinafter referred to as “the property”), alternatively applicant seeks for damages in the sum of US$6 900 000 (Six Million Nine Hundred Thousand United States Dollars). The applicant is the registered owner of the property which is 250.0353 hectares in extent and is claiming to vindicate the property. The respondent is a local authority currently in possession of the property which it subdivided into residential stands and sold... More
On 26 January 2007, in case No. HC 342/07, Hlatshwayo J inter alia ordered, by consent, the consolidation of Case No. 5883/06 and 7624/06.
THE PROVISIONAL ORDERS
CASE NO. 5883/06
On 15 September 2006, the applicants filed an urgent chamber application in which they sought certain relief. A provisional order was granted on 19 September 2006 by Hungwe J. More
The facts in this mater are that on 30 August 2008, the National Incomes and Pricing Commission (the Commission) issued, in The Herald, a schedule of school fees that it had fixed for the schools identified in that schedule. The schedule was accompanied by a statement by the 1st respondent that the flouting of the fixed fees would result in the prosecution of school heads and cashiers. Fearing the arrest of school heads and cashiers at the instance of the respondents, and the disruption of operations of schools as a result of the arrests, the applicant filed this urgent chamber... More
This is an application for rescission of default judgment brought in terms of Order 9 rule 63 of the High Court Rules 1971. The application is opposed. The relief sought is that: More
This is an appeal by the Attorney General against the judgment of the Magistrates’ Court granting bail to the respondent.
This court will interfere with the decision of a Magistrates’ court to grant or refuse bail only if the Magistrate committed an irregularity or misdirection or exercised his discretion so unreasonably or improperly as to vitiate his decision. S v Malunjwa HB 34-03; S v Ruturi HH 23-03; S v Makamba SC 30-04. More
The accused person was sentenced on 19 September 2011. The application for condonation was filed on 19 June 2012 exactly nine months after the conclusion of the matter. It was filed after the accused had completed his sentence of community service. The delay was inordinate indeed and the reasons given for the delay, namely that the transcription and correction of the record took too long are not good reasons at all. More
The appellant filed a notice of appeal on 01 July 2013 with the Registrar of the High court. The notice revealed intention to appeal against a magistrate’s order of granting the respondent bail. The grant of appeal as given in the notice of appeal was that the learned magistrate misdirected himself in finding that the changed circumstances advanced by the appellant did not guarantee that she would stand trial. The changed circumstances must have been considered in light of the totality of the circumstances of the case. The brief history of the matter as shown on papers filed and oral... More
This is an appeal against the granting of bail to the respondent by the magistrates court. The respondent is opposed to the application citing that the respondent is a suitable candidate for bail. A perusal of the record of proceedings in the court a quo shows a brief statement by the magistrate that remanding the accused now the respondent in custody will not achieve anything in the interest of justice. His reasoning for coming to that conclusion was not outlined. More
This application was placed before me in chambers. The applicant seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the magistrates court acquitting the respondent at the close of the state case on a charge of fraud in contravention of section 136 of the Criminal Law Code [Cap 9:23]. More
In this case the respondents were convicted, in the magistrate’s court on 19 March 2012, of conspiracy to commit public violence as defined in s 188 as read with s 36 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act, [Cap 9:23]. The Respondents were sentenced each to pay a fine of US$500, 00 or, in default of payment to undergo 10 months imprisonment. In addition they were each sentenced to 24 months imprisonment of which 12 months were suspended on conditions of good behaviour and the remaining 12 months were suspended on condition that each accused performs 420 hours of... More
