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
The appellants appeal against the whole judgment of the High Court (the court a quo), which was handed down on 30 December 2021. The court a quo ordered the ejectment of the appellants from a piece of land known as Subdivision 1 of Binder in the Goromonzi District of Mashonaland East Province measuring 232.8 ha in respect of which the respondent claimed a right of occupation. More
This is an appeal against the whole judgment of the High Court (court a quo) sitting at Bulawayo, which was handed down on 3 November 2023. The court a quo found the appellants guilty of murder as defined in s 47 (1) (b) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23] (Criminal Law Code) and sentenced each of them to 15 years imprisonment. More
This matter was placed before the full bench of this Court for confirmation of an order of constitutional invalidity pursuant to r 31 of the Constitutional Court Rules, 2016, (hereinafter “the Rules”) as read with s 175 (1) of the Constitution, against the judgment of the High Court, (hereinafter “court a quo”) in the case of Penelope Douglas Stone & Anor v Central Africa Building Society & Ors HC 4243/21. More
The plaintiff in both cases is a company incorporated in terms of the laws of the Channel Islands. The defendant in both cases is a company registered in terms of the laws of Zimbabwe. It between 1998 and 2004 mined diamonds at Riner Ranch Mine in Beitbridge. It had been authorised to do so in terms of a compromise agreement which enabled the plaintiff to come out of liquidation. The mine belongs to the plaintiff. More
On 9 February 2018, the applicants filed an urgent Chamber Application for an order staying “proceedings” pending the hearing of an appeal in this Court under case number 847/2017. The first applicant is a self-actor who also purports to act on behalf of the second applicant. In the absence of a power of attorney authorising her to do so, the first applicant cannot lawfully represent the second applicant without violating ss 10 and 12 of the Legal Practitioners Act [Chapter 27.07]. More
This is an appeal against part of the judgment of the High Court Harare.
The first appellant, Shorai Nzara, (Shorai) is the mother of the second to fourth appellants to whom she donated the property that forms the subject of this dispute. The first respondent Cecilia Kashumba N.O. was the wife of the late Dzingai Kashumba and is the executrix dative of his estate. Dzingai Kashumba (Dzingai) entered into an agreement of sale with Shorai Nzara the original owner of the property at the heart of this seventeen-year-old dispute. The second respondent is the Registrar of Deeds who was cited... More
