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
This is an appeal against the whole judgment of the High Court (the court a quo) delivered on 17 January 2024, in terms of which it declared the respondent the holder of a fifty percent undivided share of certain piece of land in Hartley called Swallowfield of Johannesburg, Norton, measuring 127, 6238 hectares, held under Deed of Transfer Number 5157/99. The Court a quo also declared that the ownership rights held by the respondent were held in his personal capacity and not in trust on behalf of the second and third appellants herein. It granted costs of suit in favour... More
The applications in both files are basically for the setting aside of the first and second respondents’ decision made on the 23rd of May 2017 reconstituting the boundaries and the beacons of the applicants’ mining claims and the awarding of the parts of the applicants’ claim to the third respondent. More
This is the unanimous decision of this Court. This is an appeal against the whole judgment of the High Court handed down on 2 November 2022, in which the court a quo struck the appellant’s and the sixth respondent’s application off the roll. The application was for the nullification of two transfers of an immovable property in the estate of the late Muchandibaya Makuzva. The transfer of the property was firstly to Viola Machera nee Makuzva and subsequently to the second respondent, ‘The Nengomasha Family Trust’. More
On the 17th October 2017 the above two cases were consolidated and argued at the same time before us. After hearing arguments in both matters we dismissed the appeals. More
This is an appeal against the decision of the High Court (‘the court a quo’) which ordered the second appellant to cancel caveat 844/2000; ZN caveat 26/2017 and caveat 77/2019 endorsed on Deed of Transfer 3188/83. More
This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court (the court a quo) sitting at Harare, handed down on 28 July 2022, declaring that the appointment of the appellants as Trustees of the Centennial Trust was null and void. The court a quo also ordered that the appellants pay costs of suit on the legal practitioner and client scale. More
On 3 May 2021, the appellants noted an appeal against the whole judgment of the High Court (the court a quo) dated 14 April 2021, in which the court a quo granted a declaratory order and consequential relief in favour of the first respondent (Warurama). The court a quo declared the directive issued by the second respondent (the Minister) to the first appellant (the municipality) to reverse the purported appointment of Warurama as its financial director to be null and void and of no legal effect. It consequently set aside the directive and confirmed Warurama as the financial director in... More
