Electronic Court judgements

Browse all Court Judgements

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

This is a hotly contested appeal against the whole judgment of the High Court sitting at Harare, and delivered on 30 October 2013. The epicentre of the dispute is a certain piece of land in the Goromonzi District known as the Remaining Extent of Stuhm measuring 583, 1360 hectares in extent registered in the name of TIBIC INVESTMENTS (PVT) LTD under Deed of Transfer 1724/2009. TIBIC INVESTIMENTS (PVT) LTD is an indigenous company in the sense that its shareholders and directors are indigenous citizens of this country. The historical background and factual basis of the case is by and large... More

On 31 March 2009 the Court issued the following order in this matter: "IT IS DECLARED THAT: (1) The refusal to refer the constitutional issue in the magistrate court in the matter of The State v Tom Beattie Pvt Ltd and Thomas Irving Beattie to the Supreme Court for determination was wrongful and was consequently a breach of the applicants’ right to protection of law under section 18(1) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe. (2) Section 277(3), as read with section 277(5), of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23] is consistent with section 18(1), as read with section... More

1. This is a chamber application for condonation of non-compliance with r 37 (2) and extension of time within which to file the appeal. The application is purportedly brought in terms of r 43 (1) of the Supreme Court Rules, 2018 (the Rules). The application is opposed. More

This is an urgent chamber application for an order directing the Registrar to set down for hearing on an urgent basis the main application the applicants purported to file on 1 March 2018. The applicants are political parties represented by Mr Mukwazhe, who is the leader of the first applicant. In the application purportedly filed on 1 March 2018, under case no. CCZ 11/18 (the main application), the applicants did not seek leave to file the application. An endorsement was made on the application to the effect that leave to apply for direct access to the Constitutional Court (“the Court”)... More

BHUNU JA: This appeal from the High Court has its genesis in the Magistrates Court which acquitted both appellants on one charge of fraud as defined in s 136 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23] and, secondly, operating an unregistered trust in contravention of s 9 of the Private Voluntary Organisations Act [Chapter 17:05]. Aggrieved by the acquittal of both appellants on the firstcount the respondent appealed to the High Court (the court a quo). More

This is a composite judgment in respect of two appeals which were, at the request of the parties, consolidated and heard at the same time. The appeals are against two separate judgments by the High Court dismissing special pleas of prescription raised by the appellants in respect of a claim for specific performance launched by the respondent. More

These two matters were consolidated at the pre-trial conference held before CHITAPI J on 7 March 2017. More

The applicant in this matter is a self-actress seeking the indulgence of this Court to begranted condonation for non-compliance with the Rules. On 29 March 2023, her applicationfor direct access to this Court under Case No. CCZ 55/22 was struck off the roll due to herfailure to effect proper service on the first respondent. The application was one of many suitsbetween the applicant and the firstrespondent who have beendeadlocked inprotractedlitigationsince2016when thelatter sought toevict theformer from hisproperty. The dispute between the parties appeared to have reached finality when the SupremeCourt, in Case No.SC 443/21, dismissed the applicant’s appeal in which she... More

These two matters involve related issues between the same parties. It is convenient that they be dealt with together. The applicants in the first matter are the respondents in the second matter. They seek the provisional order under the certificate of urgency, suspending the order granted in favour of the respondent in a magistrate’s court in case number 9100/12 pending the determination of an appeal against that order filed with the Supreme Court. The back ground to these cases is that Precious ChinyereOkeke is married to Chief Jerome Okeke, a Nigerian businessman resident in Zimbabwe. At some point during their... More