Welcome to Midlands State University Library

Court Judgements



Browse Court Judgements by year
The applicant Peter Michael Hitschmann is a registered firearms dealer based in Mutare, residing at 33 Arcadia Road, Tiger Kloof. On the 6th of March 2006 police acting on information searched the applicant’s residence. As a result of the search they recovered a large assortment of weaponry including: (a) 7.62m EN rifle (with Telescope) (b) 7.62 AK Rifle (c) 9mm MPs SMG with silencer (d) 9mm UZI SMG (e) 9mm UZI SMG (f) 9mm UZI SMG (g) 9mm UZI SMG (h) 9mm UZI SMG (i) 9mm UZI SMG (j) 9mm UZI SMG (k) 1½ Inch Signal Pistol (l) 9mm UZI... More

“TERMS OF FINAL ORDER SOUGHT 1. That in the absence of legislation or a court order, 1st respondent is not entitled to take the law into his own hands and bring about an eviction of the applicants. 2. That respondents pay the costs of suit. More

The applicant has approached this court by way of an application for an order placing the estate of the respondent under provisional liquidation. As the respondent is an individual, it is understood and accepted by both parties that what is sought is an order placing the estate of the respondent under provisional sequestration and appointing a trustee to run and manage the financial and business affairs of the respondent More

The applicant is a national of Ireland. He came into this country as a visitor, what is commonly known as a tourist. On 31st August 2006, officers from the first respondent seized certain items which he had in his possession and which he intended to export to Ireland through a freight forwarding entity known as Trax International. It is common cause that at the time of seizure of these items, which are carved out wood, no documents were issued to the applicant. It is common cause that from that date the applicant and the first respondent have had discourse on... More

: This is an urgent application to review the proceedings conducted by the respondents on 6 and 7 March 2006 that resulted in the imprisonment of the applicant for a sentence imposed upon him in April 1992. More

The plaintiff in this matter claims payment in the sum of $8,150,000.00 by way of damages sustained by her arising from an assault allegedly perpetrated by members of the Zimbabwe National Army on the 4th of June 2003 in Glenview, Harare. The plaintiff avers that the soldiers in question were at the relevant time acting within the course and scope of their employment and that the defendant is therefore vicariously liable for their actions. More

SERE (PRIVATE) LIMITED VERSUS HIPPO VALLEY ESTATES LIMITED AND ERNEST & ASHTON HC 8001/03 2. HIPPO VALLEY ESTATES LIMITED VERSUS CHIWENGA ESTATES (PRIVATE) LIMITED & 4 OTHERS HC 5830/03 AND BON ESPOIR (PRIVATE) LIMITED AND O MATAMBA HC 6318/03 AND BON ESPOIR (PRIVATE) LIMITED AND CCHITIMA HC 5796/03 3. TRIANGLE LIMITED AND HIPPO VALLEY ESTATES LIMITED VERSUS ER HARRISON AND 4 OTHERS HC 10028/03 AND 4. HIPPO VALLEY ESTATES LIMITED VERSUS CHIREDZI NOMINEES (PRIVATE) LIMITED & 22 OTHERS HC 5831/03 AND CHIREDZI RANCHING CO. (PRIVATE) LIMITED & 8 OTHERS HC 5821/03 AND CHIREDZI RANCHING COMPANY (PRIVATE) LIMITED & 2 OTHERS HC 6311/03 AND DENHARII (PRIVATE) LIMITED & 4 OTHERS HC 5804/03 AND LYNDHURST ESTATE (PRIVATE LIMITED AND 2 OTHERS HC 6321/03 AND L.T. ENGELS (PRIVATE) LIMITED AND 2 OTHERS HC 6320/03 AND RIO ENTERPRISES & 5 OTHERS HC 5811/03 AND MARATHAN ESTATES (PRIVATE) LIMITED & 3 OTHERS HC 5806/03 AND MAPANZA ESTATES (PRIVATE) LIMITED & 32 OTHERS HC 5823/03 AND KWAINGWE FARMS (PRIVATE) LIMITED AND 10 OTHERS HC 5824/03 AND ESPERANCE ESTATE LIMITED AND PATRICK M SIBANDA HC 5805/03 AND FANTAISE FARMS (PRIVATE) LIMITED & 18 OTHERS HC 5794/03 (2006-05-24)
The applicant Hippo Valley Estates Limited is a Sugar Cane Miller obliged by law to accept sugar cane from growers for milling at its mills. The first respondent in almost all the cases owned farms or settlements on which the rest of the respondents claimed to have been resettled by the government. The respondents delivered sugar cane to applicant for milling. After having accepted the sugar cane for milling the applicant was faced with two competing claims; from the 1st respondents and from the rest of the respondents. It was in these circumstances that the applicant instituted these interpleader proceedings More