This matter was referred to this court by a magistrate in terms of s 24 (2) of the former Constitution of Zimbabwe. After hearing the parties, judgment was reserved. More
MATHONSI JA: This is an appeal against the whole judgment of the High Court handed down on 23 July 2020 which declared the first respondent the rightful owner of a Cat Caterpillar Dump Truck 769C. The Caterpillar was purchased by the first respondent at a judicial auction conducted by the Sheriff on 18 October 2019 at Devuli Farm in Bikita.
After hearing arguments we issued the following order:
“1. The appeal be and is hereby dismissed.
2. By consent, the appellant shall pay costs at the ordinary scale.
3. The reasons for judgment will be delivered in due course.” More
On 1 March 2018 the applicants filed a chamber application for leave for direct access to the Constitutional Court in terms of r 21(2) of the Constitutional Court Rules SI 61 of 2016 (“the Rules”). The first and second applicants are political parties represented by the third and fourth applicants respectively. The fifth applicant is a political activist. He is not a member of any of the political parties. It is not explained in the papers why the political parties were joined with him in the making of the application. More
This is an appeal against the whole judgment of the High Court handed down on 1 June 2020 granting an interdict in favour of the first and second respondents. More
This is an application for relief in terms of s 24(1) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe (as amended by Constitution Amendment No. 19) (hereinafter referred to as “the Constitution”). More
This is a chamber application for an order for leave to appeal to the Constitutional Court (“the Court”) against a decision of the Supreme Court (“the court a quo”). The application is made in terms of r 32(2) of the Constitutional Court Rules S.I. 61/2016 (“the Rules”). More
This is an appeal against the whole judgement of the High Court (“the court a quo”) delivered on 2 March 2023. The court a quo dismissed an appellant made by the applicant in terms of s 4 of the Administrative Justice Act [Chapter 10:28] (“AJA”) More
The two appellants and the first respondent are Zimbabwean companies registered in terms of the law. The second respondent is an Arbitrator who is presiding over a dispute between the appellants and the first respondent.
RM Enterprises (Private) Limited (the second appellant) is a wholly owned subsidiary of Riozim Limited (the first appellant). On 19 January 2010 the first appellant and Maranatha Ferrochrome (Private) Limited (the first respondent) entered into a memorandum of Shareholders’ Agreement. In terms of the agreement, the first appellant was to ensure that 40 per cent of issued shares in the second appellant would be transferred... More
This is an appeal against the whole judgment of the High Court (the court a quo) sitting at Harare, handed down on 9 May 2023, dismissing the first appellant’s application for a declaration under case HC 5989/19 and granting the first respondent’s application to set aside the second respondent’s decision to uplift judicial attachment on stand 654 Pomona Township, under case HC 10315/19. More
This is an appeal against the whole judgment of the High Court (the court a quo) wherein the court dismissed the appellants’ claim. The claim was for the cancellation of mortgage bond 11422/2001 registered over a certain piece of land situate in the District of Salisbury called Stand 731 Glen Lorne Township 15 of Lot 41 of Glen Lorne measuring 5 960 square metres held under deed of transfer No. 11317/2000 dated 31 November, 2001 and alternative declaratory relief confirming the abandonment or waiver of rights by the first respondent. Additionally, the appellants sought an order declaring any cession of... More
This is a chamber application for condonation and extension of time within which to file an appeal against a judgment of the High Court. It is brought in terms of r 43 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2018. The application is opposed. More
This is an appeal against the whole judgment of the High Court (the court a quo) in which all the appellants were convicted of murder as defined in s 47 (1) (b) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23] and each was sentenced to death. More
