This is an urgent chamber application for a provisional order whose interim relief sought is stated as follows:-
“Interim relief sought/granted
1. Pending the determination of this matter, the respondents be and are interdicted
from removing the property listed in Annexture A”. More
This is an urgent chamber application for a provisional order whose interim relief sought was couched in these terms:
“ 1. That the second respondent be and is hereby ordered to stay ejectment of
applicant from the premises known as 93 Coventry Road, Harare
pending the hearing of this urgent application for stay of execution.
2. In the event of the second respondent having ejected applicant from the premises known as 93 Coventry Road Harare, he is hereby directed temporarily to return possession of the premises to applicant pending the outcome of the application for stay of execution.” More
: The dispute in this case is essentially between the plaintiff and the first defendant who both claim to have purchased stand number 2110 Solani Epworth from the second defendant. The plaintiff claims to have bought the property on 12 March 2000 but did not take session of the purchased property. The second defendant however, later purchased the same property from the first defendant and took cession on 21 of March 2003. The session was duly registered by the third defendant in its capacity as the Local Board and owner of the property in dispute. More
On 28 February 2007, the plaintiff entered into a deed of sale with the defendant for the purchase of an immovable property being subdivision B of subdivision D of subdivision A of Lot 4 of Lot A of Colne Valley of Rietfontein otherwise known as 47 Addington Lane Ballentine Park, Harare. More
. The applicant is a son to the late Jayison Mukuro. He is however not born of first respondent. The first respondent is a surviving spouse of the late Jayison Mukuro. She was duly appointed executor of the Estate late Jayison Mukuro. More
The applicant and the respondent were employer and employee respectively. The respondent was employed by the applicant as its Chief Pharmacist with effect from 1 December 2002 up to November 2008. It was a specific term of her employment that the respondent would be entitled to the use of a motor vehicle during the course of her employment. At the time of her joining the applicant, there was no policy in place regulating the use and entitlement to the vehicle. Such was put in place later and there is no dispute between the parties that it applied to the respondent. More
The parties in this matter had been married for a considerable period of time until they started living apart in 2001. At the pre-trial conference stage they agreed that the marriage relationship had irretrievably broken down. More
