This judgment is a product of two matters that were consolidated and heard as one. The issues at stake and the interests of the parties involved herein converge. At the centre of the dispute in both cases is an Extra Ordinary General Meeting (EGM or the meeting) that dealt with the business of the fourth respondent in HC 1351/21 (Case 1), and the sixth respondent in HC 1270/21 (Case 2) on 8 February 2021. The applicants in both cases contend that the meeting did not comply with certain provisions of the Companies and Other Business Entities Act (the COBE or... More
MUSITHU J: This is a composite judgment which deals with two matters which were consolidated and argued at the same time at the request of the parties’ counsel. In HC 2524/22, which is Case 1 herein, the applicant applies for condonation for non-compliance with the rules of court and an extension of time within which to file a court application for rescission of a default judgment. The applicant is also seeking the rescission of the default judgment which was granted by this court in HC 2971/17. In HC 6784/19, which is Case 2 herein, the applicant is seeking the confirmation... More
The applicant is a banking institution, duly registered in terms of the laws of Zimbabwe and the respondent is a company duly registered as such in terms of the laws of Zimbabwe. Sometime in June 2022 the applicant issued a court application for a rei vindicatio against the respondent under case number HC 4274/22 and the application was opposed by the respondent. The applicant avers that the respondent failed to file its heads of argument timeously and was thus barred. Sometime in September 2022 the court per CHITAPI J granted a default judgement in favour of the applicant. Aggrieved by... More
This is a composite judgment in respect of two appeals which were, at the request of the parties, consolidated per order of this court of 22 November 2024 and heard at the same time. It was convenient to do so because the parties are the same and represented by the same legal practitioners. The appeals are against the same judgment. More
By consent of the parties the three matters HC 6525/22, HC 6526/22 and HC 2527 were consolidated and were heard at the same time mainly because the applications in the three files concerned an application for an interpleader. The Applicant in the three matters is the same. The judgment creditors are the same. The judgment debtors are the same. Only the Claimants are different but the legal practitioners representing the parties in each of the matters are the same. The reliefs being sought is essentially the same. More
The appellant’s twelve year old niece died a painful and defining death on 18 June 2011, the victim of a callous rape and strangulation. The appellant was later charged of her murder and by judgment delivered on 25 February 2015, the High Court (“the court a quo”) found the appellant guilty and sentenced him to death. This is an automatic appeal against both conviction and sentence. More
Sometime in August 2016 the respondent, Victor Mariranyika, loaned and engine and irrigation pipes to the appellant. The appellant did not return the equipment on time. The respondent sued the appellant in the small claims court under case number SCC 4/2018 and obtained a default judgment against the appellant. After appellant’s property was attached by the messenger of court, the appellant paid for the irrigation pipes. He had already returned the respondent’s engine. More
The first applicant, through its trustees, purchased property being No. 13 Coventry Road, Greystone Park, Borrowdale Harare, from a sheriff’s sale. Prior to the sale, the first respondent was its previous owner. Having bought the property and registered the property in the name of first applicant, the second applicant Elizabeth Tete, a Trustee, seeks to evict Lawrence Muteswa, the first respondent, on the basis of lawful title to the property. In his notice of opposition, the first respondent resists eviction primarily on the grounds that he has a pending matter in the High Court challenging the sale and that until... More
The appellant appeals against the whole judgment of the Labour Court (the court a quo), which was handed down on 9 January 2015. The court a quo dismissed his appeal against the determination of the disciplinary authority, which found him guilty of misconduct and dismissed him from employment. More
The applicant is a South African national. He is on bail together with three accused South African nationals on allegations of fraud involving US$1 million. The alleged principal perpetrator, one Ping Sung Hsieh, is in South Africa awaiting extradition to this country. His extradition hearing is scheduled for 14 June, 2011.
On 28 February, 2011 OMERJEE J granted the applicant and his co-accused bail pending trial. The bail order reads as follows:-
“1. The applicant to deposit $500 with the Clerk of Court Harare Magistrate Court.
2. The applicant resides at No. 4 Dromore Road, Highlands, until this matter is... More
The applicants, in a founding affidavit deposed to by the first applicant and to which the other nine have confirmed themselves to be party to the averments contained therein, allege that they are members of the Emmanuel Baptist Church in Zimbabwe. In an opposing affidavit deposed to by the first respondents, all respondents have challenged the membership of a number of the applicants. More
The plaintiff and the first defendant were wife and husband respectively under an unregistered customary law union which has now been dissolved. The second defendant, Kuyeri Family Trust (hereinafter The Trust) is cited in these proceedings on account of the purported interest it has in the major dispute between the plaintiff and the first defendant. More
1. The appeal against conviction having been abandoned at the hearing, this judgment disposes of the appeal against the sentence imposed on each appellant.
2. The appellants were convicted after a protracted trial on a charge of fraud as defined in s 136 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23]. Each was sentenced to 48 months imprisonment of which 12 months were suspended for 5 years on the usual conditions of good behavior, to leave an effective sentence of 36 months imprisonment. More
The appellant was employed by the respondent as a general manager. She faced two charges as per pages 182 to 184 of the record. The first charge was gross incompetency or inefficiency in the performance of her work. The second charge was that she had committed any act or conduct or omission inconsistent with the fulfillment of the express or implied conditions of her contract of employment.
She was found guilty of all 3 counts of the first charge that is gross incompetency or inefficiency in the performance of her duty. Further she was found guilty of counts four and... More
