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
This is an appeal against the whole judgment of the Electoral Court (court a quo), handed down on 15 August 2023. The court dismissed an urgent court application for a review of the decision of the nomination court, declining to accept the first appellant’s nomination paper for the candidates on the party list for the Bulawayo Provincial Council. This was in respect of the general elections held on 23 and 24 August 2023. More
The first respondent brought an application in the court a quo for the provisional liquidation of the second respondent in terms of s 5 (1) (b) (iii) of the Insolvency Act [Chapter 6:07] (the Act). The section authorizes one or more members of a company to apply for an order to wind up a company in circumstances where it is just and equitable that the company be liquidated. Section 4 (1) of the Act clothes the first respondent, in his capacity as executor with the authority to apply for the liquidation of the second respondent as a debtor of the... More
This is an appeal against the whole judgment of the High Court (the court a quo) sitting at Harare, handed down on 11 May 2022, in terms of which it confirmed, on review, the judgment of the first respondent (the primary court) as being neither irrational nor grossly irregular. Aggrieved by the decision of the court a quo, the appellants have noted the present appeal. More
This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court dismissing the appellants’ application for review against the decision of the respondent cancelling the first appellant’s mining rights in Antelope 9-Reg No. 36034-Antelope 2,3,4,5 and 6 Reg No’s 33199, 33127, 33128, 33129 & 33130, Antelope East 2-Reg No-32200, Antelope East Extension & Antelope East Extension 2-Reg No’s 34385 & 34386, Antelope East-Reg No-32106, Antelope 11-Reg No-36036 (hereinafter referred to as the mining claims). More
On 17 October 2023 the Supreme Court was seized with an application “for a review” of a judgment by a single judge of the court sitting in chambers “purportedly” filed in terms of s 176 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe 2013 as read with s 6 of the Supreme Court Act [Chapter 7:13] (“the Act”). The court dismissed with costs an application for referral in terms of s 175 (4) of the Constitution and indicated that its reasons would ensue in due course. On 19 October 2023, the Supreme Court rendered its decision declining jurisdiction in respect of the application... More
The two deceased persons died painful deaths during their daily
routines of trying to make ends meet. The first appellant was arrested on 11 May 2018 and the
second appellant on 16 August 2019. Both appellants were charged with two counts of the
murder of the two deceased persons and by judgment delivered on 17 February 2020, the High
Court “the court a quo” found the appellants guilty and sentenced them to death. This is an
automatic appeal against both conviction and sentence. More
This is an appeal against the entire judgment of the High Court (“the court a quo”), wherein it dismissed the appellants’ point in limine that the respondents’ application before it was a nullity for non-compliance with r 59 of the High Court Rules, 2021, (“the Rules”). At the hearing of the appeal, Mr Zvobgo for the first and second respondents, raised a point in limine to the effect that the present appeal was fatally defective for the reason that it had been noted without the leave of the court a quo, as the appeal is against an interlocutory order. This... More
This is an appeal against the whole judgement of the High Court (the court a quo) sitting at Harare handed down on 15 March 2023. Two opposed applications under case numbers HC 1351/21 and HC 1270/21 were consolidated and heard as one in the court a quo. At the centre of the dispute in both cases was an Extra Ordinary General Meeting (the meeting) which dealt with the business of the fourth respondent, Biltrans Services (Pvt) Ltd in HC 1351/21 (case 1) and the sixth respondent, Auto Seal Zimbabwe, in HC 1270/21 (case 2). The respondents in both cases contended... More
