That this is an application made by two judgment debtors whose immovable property has been sold by the Sheriff in execution of a judgment of this court in terms of r 359 (8) of this court’s rules, is beyond any disputation because the application itself says so firstly in the Form 29 and secondly in para 6 of the first applicant’s founding affidavit dealing with the nature of the application. More
The applicant seeks relief by way of summary judgement. The relief sought is set out in the draft order accompanying the application as follows:
“1. Summary judgement be and is hereby granted.
2. Defendant shall pay the sum of US$33 000 to plaintiff or the equivalent thereof at the prevailing inter-bank rate made up as follows;
a) US$18 000 for explosives sold to the defendant.
b) US$14 500 being arrear rentals for mining compressors.
c) US$500.00 being damages for repair of the damaged compressor.
3. Interest thereon at the prescribed rate from the date of summons to date of full... More
1. This is an application for leave to appeal out of time and for a certificate to prosecute such appeal in person.
2. The applicant was, on 17 December 2020, convicted of robbery committed in aggravating circumstances as defined in s 126(1)(a) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23].
3. He was sentenced to 12 years imprisonment of which 2 years imprisonment was suspended for 5 years on the usual conditions of good behaviour. A further 1 year imprisonment was suspended on condition the applicant paid restitution.
4. The application was filed on 1 July 2022.
5.... More
Applicant applied to this Court for condonation of a belated review. The application was made in terms of Rule 22 of the Labour Court Rules S.I. 150/17. Respondent opposed the application. More
On 1 February, 2010, the respondent purchased Plot number 236 which was 300 square metres through Nandi Properties who are cited as Estate Agents in the Agreement of Sale. The Agreement of Sale said the plot number was temporary and for identification purposes only and that the “Department of Physical Planning” was still working on allocating the stand numbers. More
1. This is an appeal against both conviction and sentence. The appellant and three others were convicted after a full trial on a charge of unlawful possession of raw unmarked ivory as defined in s 82(1) of Statutory Instrument 69/90 as read with s 128(b) of the Parks and Wildlife Act [Chapter 20:14]. Finding that there were no special circumstances, the trial court sentenced the four to the mandatory minimum nine years imprisonment. More
On 8th April 2015 at Harare, Arbitrator Y Malama issued an arbitration award. She ordered the respondent to pay the appellant an amount of US$3 663-00 “as underpayments for April 2012 to April 2013.” The appellant then appealed to this court against the award. The respondent opposed the appeal. More
The appellant appeared before a Magistrate sitting at Tredgold, Bulawayo facing a charge of contravening section 113 (a) of the Criminal Law Codification and Reform Act (Chapter 9:23). He pleaded guilty to the charge and was convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of $80, in default of payment 18 days imprisonment. Appellant was not legally represented at the trial. He now appeals both against conviction and sentence. More
1. This is an appeal against the whole judgment of the Electoral Court sitting in Bulawayo dated 29 August 2019. The court granted a declaratory order sought by the first and second respondents (‘the respondents’)that the appellant’s election was in contravention of the Electoral Act [Chapter 2:13] and as a result set aside the appellant’s election as councilorfor Ward 3 in Bulawayo More
This is an appeal against the respondent’s decision to dismiss the appellant. The appellant raised four grounds of appeal as follows:
‘1.The Respondent’s appeals committee erred at law in failing to make a finding that the charge against the Appellant was unsustainable at law to the extent same was premised on a document whose authenticity was questionable. More
On 20 February 2014, the plaintiff issued summons against the defendants for malicious prosecution. He claimed $14 000 for loss of earnings $25 000 for legal costs and $100 000 for contumelia. The defendants were duly served with the application and after default in filing the relevant pleadings. The matter was accordingly set down on the unopposed roll. The matter was heard and the claim was dismissed. The plaintiff noted an appeal, the decision was set aside and the relevant part of the Supreme Court order reads More
On17 May 2022 , the applicant was convicted by the magistrate sitting at Chinhoyi on nine counts of robbery as defined in 126 of the Criminal Law Codification and Reform Act), [Chapter 9:23].The applicant was convicted together with his co accused who is not before the court. All counts were treated as one for purposes of sentence. He was sentenced to 6 years imprisonment with 3 years suspended on condition of good behaviour. More
1. This is an appeal against both conviction and sentence. The appellants were convicted of extortion as defined in s 134 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23]. Each was sentenced to 26 months imprisonment of which 12 months were suspended for 5 years on the usual conditions of good behaviour. A further 4 months imprisonment was suspended on the condition that each appellant paid restitution. More
This matter came as an appeal against the whole judgment of the Magistrate sitting at Harare Magistrate Court. Plaintiff issued summons for defendant’s eviction from stand 7593 Warren Park Harare (hereafter called the property).Plaintiff contended that he purchased the property in 2006. Defendant contended that he purchased the property in 2002. The property in question, an undeveloped vacant stand was owned by Saltana Enterprises (Pvt) Ltd (Saltana). Saltana underwent judicial management. Defendant bought the property from Ernest Pahwaringira a senior director of Saltana in his personal capacity. Plaintiff bought the property from the judicial manager under Tudor House Consultants. Plaintiff... More
This is an appeal against both conviction and sentence where the appellant was convicted of Robbery as defined in S 126 (1) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act, [Chapter 9:23] where he was sentenced to 48 months imprisonment of which 6 months imprisonment was suspended on the usual conditions of future good behaviour. More
