: The plaintiff and defendant were joined in holy matrimony on 4 January 2000 in terms of the Marriages Act, [Cap 5:11].
Both parties are domiciled in Zimbabwe.
Their marriage was blessed with two children. The first child was born on 3 October 1993 and the second child was born on 11 May 1998. The parties had initially married under customary law in 1992.
After a period of about 15 years living together the plaintiff sued for divorce alleging that the marriage had irretrievably broken down in that:-
• The plaintiff and defendant have not lived as husband and wife... More
This is an urgent chamber application for an order suspending the procurement process instituted by the first respondent under reference number ZPCR33-2022. The tender was advertised by the Zimbabwe Manpower Development Fund (ZIMDEF), which falls under the first respondent on 9 September 2022. The relevant tender documents are marked Annexure “TC2”, which appears on pages 16-36 of the record. On the return date, the applicant seeks nullification and cancellation of the tender process. This application comes soon after the determination of HC 1727/22, which was an application for review and setting aside of the decision of ZIMDEF awarding a tender... More
I have before mean application filed by the applicant on 15 March 2022for review in terms of section 4 of the Administrative Justice Act [Chapter 10:28] (hereinafter referred to as “the AJA”), and for setting aside the decision of the 2nd respondent made on 22 February 2022. In addition, the applicant seeks the setting aside of the decision of the 1st respondent given on 9 December 2022, which awarded a tender to provide SAP software services to the 3rdrespondent. Dissatisfied with this, the applicant sought a determination of the matter by the Review Panel in terms of section 74 of... More
This matter was determined on the basis of the record as agreed to by the parties’ respective legal practitioners.
This is an application for condonation of late noting of appeal. In order for an application of this nature to succeed, the following considerations must be made.
(a) Whether the extent of the delay was inordinate regard being had to the circumstances of the case
(b) Whether a reasonable explanation for the delay was proffered
(c) Whether there are prospects of success should the matter be heard on the merits. More
The applicant filed an urgent chamber application seeking a provisional order which in effect sought execution of a specific clause from an earlier provisional order granted to it. This was in light of an appeal of that order by the first respondent to the Supreme Court despite not having opposed the provisional order when it was sought. More
This is an appeal against the whole judgment of the High Court (the court a quo) sitting at Harare dated 7 July 2021 upholding the respondent’s point in limine to the effect that the appellant’s cause of action had prescribed thereby dismissing with costs the appellant’s claim. More
On 24 June 2021, I reserved judgment in this matter to consider the issue of prescription that had been raised by the respondent. This was after the court had dismissed the applicant’s point in limine that the opposing affidavit to the respondent’s notice of opposition had not been properly commissioned. It is trite that a court before proceeding into the merits must deal with a point in limine. See Gwaradzimba N.O v CJ Petron & Co (pty) Ltd, 2016(1) ZLR 28 (S). More
The respondent was charged with misconduct in terms of what is styled, in the Charge Sheet, as the Marathon Group of Companies Code of Conduct. He is alleged to have contravened section 12 thereof, receiving or attempting to receive a bribe. More
This matter was heard in chambers as an urgent application on the afternoon of the 27th of January 2005. The applicant sought a provisional order interdicting the first respondent from issuing any further shares, whether as a rights issue or otherwise, until the occurrence of certain events. The applicant also sought authority to appoint one or more representatives to participate and vote at any extraordinary general meeting (“EGM”) of the first respondent without interference from the second respondent. Pending finalisation of the matter, the applicant sought interim relief postponing the first respondent’s EGM which was scheduled for 9.00 a.m. on... More
This case arises from a construction dispute between Tzircalle Brothers (Private) Limited and the City of Bulawayo concerning a public infrastructure contract. The Applicant seeks to set aside an arbitral award made in favour of the First Respondent by Mr. M. Ncube N.O. on the grounds that it is contrary to the public policy of Zimbabwe, as provided under Article 34(2)(b)(ii) of the Model Law incorporated into the Arbitration Act [Chapter 7:15] More
The plaintiff, U-Link Freight (Pvt) Ltd, sued the first defendant, Matrix Fertilizers (Pvt) Ltd, and the second defendant, Mr. Isaac Noah, for damages arising from a trucking incident. The plaintiff’s claim comprises two heads: (a) US$35,000 as the value of a freight truck that was rendered a total loss, and (b) loss of income quantified at US$22,000 per month for the period during which the truck was out of operation. The plaintiff alleges that the second defendant – who was driving the truck at the material time – was acting in the course and scope of his employment with the... More
This is an application for leave to execute the judgment granted in case No. HH 103/09 pending an appeal noted by the 2nd respondent against the judgment. More
In this matter, plaintiff issued summons on 15 September 2017 where it claimed:
(a) The refund of the US$21 700 being the balance of the purchase price for a stamp mill which the parties agreed that defendant would refund to the plaintiff following the parties’ agreement to cancel the contract of sale. Plaintiff had allegedly bought a stamp mill from the defendant.
(b) Costs of suit.
In its plea, defendant admitted that the parties entered into an agreement of sale, save to say that such agreement was oral. Defendant also admitted that plaintiff paid $26 700 towards the purchase price.... More
MABHIKWA J: In this matter, plaintiff issued summons on 15 September 2017 where it claimed:
(a) The refund of the US$21 700 being the balance of the purchase price for a stamp mill which the parties agreed that defendant would refund to the plaintiff following the parties’ agreement to cancel the contract of sale. Plaintiff had allegedly bought a stamp mill from the defendant.
(b) Costs of suit.
In its plea, defendant admitted that the parties entered into an agreement of sale, save to say that such agreement was oral. Defendant also admitted that plaintiff paid $26 700 towards the... More
