Defendant entered appearance to defend and filed a plea. The basis of the plaintiff’s claim is that on the 29th of August 2018, plaintiff and defendant entered into a Marketing Licence Agreement herein after called the (“MLA”) wherein plaintiff was the Licensor and defendant the Licensee. Plaintiff who is the owner of property known as Fife Street Service Station allowed defendant to occupy and utilize the service station on terms agreed in the said agreement. The agreed duration of the agreement was one (1) year from the 1st June 2018 up to the 31st of May 2019. In terms of... More
The plaintiff issued summons out of this court on 8 September 2009. It sought an order confirming the cancellation of the lease agreement it had with the defendant, the eviction of the defendant and all those claiming occupation through it, arrear rentals, holding over damages, interest and costs of suit. The summons was served on the defendant on 9 September 2009. The defendant entered appearance on 11 September and filed its plea on 30 October 2009. More
The applicant is a body corporate operating in Zimbabwe. The 1st respondent is the executor of the estate of Jeoffry Sakala, who died on the 12th of January 2004. The 1st respondent is legally representing himself in the present proceedings. The 2nd respondent is the Master of the High Court and is cited in his official capacity. More
This is an application filed by the applicant company against the respondent on 31 October 2011, to confirm the cancellation of the marketing licence agreement between them, his eviction and that of his assignees, invites, sub-tenants or any other persons claiming occupation through him from the service station, the payment of US$20 737.03, interest at the prescribed rate, collection commission in terms of the Law Society by-laws and costs on the scale of legal practitioner and client. The respondent opposed the application on 18 November 2011. More
The respondent was served with the applicant’s heads of argument on 13 February 2012. In terms of r 238 (2a) of the High Court of Zimbabwe, Rules 1971, the respondent was required to file its own heads of argument within fourteen days after delivery of the applicant’s heads of argument upon it. More
TAKUVA J: After hearing the parties on 8 July 2019, the court made the following pronouncement:
“The appeal be and is hereby dismissed with costs.”
Subsequently, counsel for the appellant filed a request for full reasons for our decision.
Hereunder are the full reasons.
This is an appeal against the entire judgment of the Magistrates Court granted in favour of the respondent. More
The applicant, Tour Operators Business Association of Zimbabwe (TOBAZ), is an association of registered tour operators. Among other things, it buys and arranges insurance services for foreign tourists, including motor vehicle insurance for foreign vehicles entering Zimbabwe. More
This is an application for review in terms of Order 33 Rule 256 of the High Court Rules 1971 against the decision of the first respondent dated 8th December 2015. The background to the application is that the applicant was charged for contravening s 3 (25) of the Prisons (Staff) (discipline) Regulations 1984, More
The applicant, a non-commissioned rank member of the Prison Services, appeared before a disciplinary committee on 6 November 2015 at Harare Central Prisons facing a series of misconducts. He was convicted and ordered to pay a fine of US$ 50.00 and was further given a severe reprimand. However, the second respondent who is the Commissioner of Prisons substituted the decision of the disciplinary committee with that of a dismissal on 10 December 2015.On 15 December 2015 the applicant was notifiedof his discharge from the Zimbabwe Prisons and Correctional Services in terms of their disciplinary code. Dissatisfied with the dismissal and... More
This matter pertains to two matters being case numbers HCH1754/24 and case number HC1978/24 which cases were consolidated under case number HC4083/24. The consolidation was proper as the two cases share common facts whence forth each litigant seeks relief upon. Apparently, the legal issues are so intertwined such that the resolution of one of them likely settles the other.
For clarity the following is the relief sought by each litigant More
This was an application for registration of an Arbitral Award handed down by the Arbitrator Mr D.A Whatman on 15 January, 2018. This was in respect of case No. HC 1186/18 More
Had it not been for the vagaries of climate change, this application may well never have been made. Before the court is a consolidation of two opposing claims between the same parties. One party (the applicant or “Townsend”), seeks an order for the registration of an arbitral award in terms of Article 35 of the Arbitration Act [ Chapter 7:15] (“the Act”). The other party (respondent “Sinohydro”) opposed Townsend`s claim. It also filed an application, under case number HC 1775/18, wherein it prayed for an order setting aside the same arbitral award in terms of section 34 of the same... More
This urgent chamber application for stay of execution of the judgment in case number HC 5340/22 pending application for rescission of default judgment under case number HC 7083/22 was placed before me on a certificate of urgency.
Briefly, the first respondent who was the applicant in case HC 5340/22 filed an ex parte chamber application for an attachment of property to found jurisdiction with this Honourable Court on 12 August 2022 which was not brought to the attention of the applicant. The ex parte application was technically granted in default on 13 September 2022. It was made against Toyin Traders... More
This is an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court in terms of section 92 F (2) of the Labour Act, (Chapter 28:01).
The developments in the matter are interesting. Respondent filed a Notice of Opposition as shown in the Opposing Affidavit from page 26 of the record. On the date of hearing, Applicant’s legal practitioner stated that they were raising a point in limine as Respondent had not filed heads of argument and further that Respondent was no longer opposing the application. More
This is an urgent chamber application for stay of execution purportedly made in terms of r 57 (2) (a) of the High Court Rules, 2021 (S.I. 202 of 2021). More
