Rule 348 A of the High Court rues deals with stopping the sale of a dwelling house to facilitate the settlement of a claim. Applicant brought an application under r 348 A (5a) for the postponement or suspension of the sale of the dwelling concerned; or the eviction of its occupants. More
This is an urgent application in which the provisional order sought the placement of a caveat on property described as a certain 4357 square meters of land called stand 17005 Harare Township of Stand 16969 Harare Township situate in the District of Salisbury held under Deed f Transfer No 02319/95. More
This matter came before me on a certificate of urgency issued in terms of r244 of the High Court of Zimbabwe Rules, 1971. The applicant seeks the following relief;-
“Terms of the Final Order sought
1. That the warrant of detention issued by the first respondent authorising the second respondent to detain applicant on 4 July 2012 be and is hereby cancelled.
2. The first respondent is ordered to determine the applicant’s request for extension of his Visa to stay in Zimbabwe within five days of this Order.
3. Should the application for extension of Visa be turned down, the... More
This is an application for condo
ation for late noting of appeal . It is opposed.
The applicant is a former employee of the respondent. On 7th June 2021 he was dismissed from the respondent’s employ following disciplinary proceedings for gross negligence in violation of Part V , Schedule III, Section 21.11 of the applicable code of conduct. His internal appeal to the respondent’s Appeals Committee was noted on 16th June 2021. The appeal was dismissed on 7th September 2023, more than 26 months later. He was aggrieved by that decision and therefore intends to appeal to this Court. He... More
The appellant obtained a judgement for payment of $164 452.00 against one Nizamudein Shahadat. In pursuance of execution, the Messenger of Court attacheda half share in a property called Lot 5 of stands 225-236 of Park Town Extension of Subdivision A of Waterfalls which is co-owned by the respondent and one Neejam Shahadat. The respondent brought up a claim claiming that the immovable property was jointly owned by herself and the said Neejam Shahadat who were not the judgement debtors therefore, the property was not liable for execution, resulting in these interpleader proceedings. More
The appellant was convicted of contravening s 157 (1) (a) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23]. He was sentenced to pay a fine of US$400 in default of payment to undergo four months’ imprisonment. The court further ordered that the appellant be held by prison authorities and be handed over to the Immigration Department for immediate deportation soon after payment of the fine or serving the term of imprisonment. More
This is an appeal against the whole judgment of the High Court which set aside the decision of the taxing master, the second respondent, to allow an advocate’s fees at taxation. More
This case has brought to the fore the question “what constitutes a valid court order” in situations where a court order incorporates a deed of settlement. In casu the applicant seeks the setting aside of a consent order granted by this court on the 15th March 2017 following a deed of settlement entered into by the parties on the 6th March 2017. More
This is an opposed summary judgment application.
The law on the relief of summary judgment is settled.
In sum, it is to enable a plaintiff with a clear case to obtain quick judgment against a defendant who has no real defence against the claim.
The plaintiff’s claim must be unanswerable both on the facts and the law.
To successfully repel such an application, the defendant must establish that he has a good prima facie defence.
Defendant must show that there is a mere possibility of his success at the trial, that he has a plausible case or that there is... More
In this application the applicant seeks the following relief:
“1. The respondents be and are hereby held to be in contempt of this
Honourable Court Order granted on 19 May 2009.
2. The respondents be and are hereby incarcerated for a period of ninety (90) days each.
3. Costs of this application shall be paid by the respondents”. More
On the 29th November 2017 I granted the applicants’ application and my reasons thereof were as follows: This is a ruling in an application for review in terms of section 27 (1) (c ) of the High Court Act, [Chapter7:06] More
The plaintiffs are the registered owners of an immovable property known as 7 Dougal Road, The Grange, Harare. In or about July 2004 the plaintiffs entered into a written agreement with the defendant, in terms of the property mentioned above was leased to the defendant for an initial period of six months, which was subsequently renewed on various occasions, the last such renewal have been agreed to in January 2009. At all material times, the plaintiffs were represented by their nominated agents, Gabriel Real Estate in setting the rentals and other conditions governing the lease. More
This is an application for a spoliation order. There is a lease agreement between the parties. The lease agreement dates back to 2011. Sometime in 2014 there was an attempt to evict the applicant from the premises but this court in 2018 granted absolution from the instance which resulted in the applicant remaining in occupation of the premises. The premises in question are commercial. More
On the 20th July 2015, the arbitrator issued an award in which he ordered Appellant to redo overtime calculation and pay Respondents 50% of the outstanding amounts. More
The applicant has approached this court on an urgent basis seeking the following relief:-
“TERMS OF FINAL ORDER SOUGHT
That you show cause to this Honourable Court why a final order should not be made in the following terms:-
(a) First and second respondents be and are hereby interdicted from removing or disposing of any stock of goods from Bay 1 of Number 483 Hawthorn Road, Lochnivar, Harare until finalisation of ownership dispute.
(b) First and second respondents be and are hereby ordered to return forthwith 70 (seventy) boxes of floor tiles removed by the respondents from Bay 1 of... More
