The first and second applicants share certain things in common. They seek the same relief against the first and second respondents. They were both shot at and injured by members of the Zimbabwe Republic Police on 22 February 2018. They both instituted claims for general and special damages before this court under HC 11467/18 and HC 11469/18 respectively. In their defence, the respondents herein raised the defence of prescription as part of their plea to the plaintiffs’ claims. More
This is an appeal against the decision of the Appeal Authority of the Respondent which had upheld the dismissal verdict handed down by the Disciplinary Hearing Committee on 11 September 2013. More
DUBE-BANDA J:This is an urgent application. This application was lodged in this court on 16 January 2021. The application was placed before me and I directed that the copy of the application be served on the respondents. This application was considered on the papers filed by the parties without oral argument, in accordance with paragraph 4 of Practice Directive 2 of 2021 issued by the Chief Justice of Zimbabwe. The application is opposed by 1st respondent.
In this urgent chamber application, the applicant seeks a provisional order drawn in the terms:- More
MOYO J: This is an application for leave to execute pending appeal. It is trite that in such an application at the centre of the determination are the prospects of success on appeal. The 1st respondent raised 2 points in limine,that is non-disclosure of actual facts and dirty hands. However, it is the view of this court that such information was not relevant to the dispute at hand, it being whether or not applicant should be allowed leave to execute an order of this court pending appeal. It is my considered view that in this application, applicant did not have... More
TAKUVA J: This is an urgent chamber application for leave to execute the judgment in case number HC 24/21 handed down by MOYO J on the 3rd of March 2021 pending the appeal filed in the Supreme Court by the 1st respondent under cover of case number SCB-09-21. More
This matter came to me as an urgent chamber application set for hearing on 17 April 2017. The matter was indeed heard on that day. However, the parties sought to and the court allowed them to, file further written submissions and/or heads of arguments.
Applicant filed his Heads of argument on 29 April 2019. 1st respondent did not file any submissions whilst 2nd respondent filed his “written submissions” on 3 May 2019. Thereafter, applicant filed a response to 2nd respondent’s written submissions on 10 May 2019. On 16 May 2019 the applicant wrote a letter to enquire as to whether... More
The property situate Stand 2468 Mkoba 7 Township in Gweru (“the property”) was at all relevant times owned by the fifth respondent, Gweru City Council. However, one Honest Pepolo was apparently buying it from Gweru City Council in terms of one of those standard term lease-to-buy agreements. Apparently in June 2004 Pepolo sold his rights and interest to one Claudio Chakanetsa, now deceased (“the deceased”). In these proceedings his estate was cited as the first respondent, duly represented by the executor. More
The appellant was convicted of fraud and was sentenced to 3 years’ imprisonment of which 2 years were suspended for 5 years on condition of future good behaviour. The remaining 1 year was suspended on condition of paying restitution in the amount of $45 000 by 30 November 2016. Appeal was noted against conviction only. More
It all started as a very simple contractual agreement entered into by the two applicants and the 1st respondent which was duly represented by its chosen agent, National Real Estate (Pvt) Ltd. More
This matter was placed before me through the Chamber Book on 25 January 2012. After I perused the papers I directed that the matter be set down for hearing the next day. On this day the parties addressed me on the issue of urgency. I found the matter to be urgent and the respondents asked for more time to prepare and file their opposing papers which indulgence was granted. The hearing was postponed to 31 January 2012. More
The factual position is that this Court dismissed a court application and a counter claim in HC 1456/20 whose judgment in HH 743/20 was delivered in motion court on the 25th November 2020. On the day the judgment was delivered counsel for the applicant was not present in court despite that he was advised to attend court at 1000hrs earlier on the same day at 9.30am. The reason for his failure to attend court hearing being that he was engaged elsewhere. Dissatisfied with this court’s decisions the applicant is desirous to appeal against this court’s decision to the Supreme Court More
The plaintiff and the defendant purportedly customarily married each other in 1997 or 1998. The customary union was not valid as the plaintiff was still married to another woman in terms of the Marriages Act [Cap 5;11]. The plaintiff’s wife died in April or may of 2001immediately after which the plaintiff and the defendant separated as the plaintiff’s family alleged the defendant had caused the plaintiff’s former wife to commit suicide. She threw herself on to a railway line and was crushed to death by a train. The plaintiff and the defendant resumed their customary union in June 2002 after... More
After hearing argument from counsel, the court was unanimous in granting this application in the following terms:
“1. It is declared that the applicant is not disqualified from standing as a candidate for election as a councillor in the forthcoming municipal elections.
2. There shall be no order as to costs.” More
