This is an opposed application wherein the applicant seeks the following relief:
“IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1. The respondent and all those claiming occupation through her shall vacate stand number 3414 Mainway Meadows, Waterfalls, Harare within (7) days of this order, failing which the Deputy Sheriff is authorised and directed to evict the respondent and all those claiming occupation through him (sic).
2. The respondent shall pay for the costs of this application on a higher scale of legal practitioner and client scale”. More
This matter came before me via the chamber book. The application was filed on 13 June, 2011 and was scheduled to be heard on the 16th of June, 2011. Because the opposing papers were filed and served upon the first respondent a few minutes before the scheduled hearing, the applicant requested that the hearing be postponed to either 20 or 21 June, 2011 to enable her to file an answering affidavit. But since the applicant’s immovable property was set to be auctioned at 10 a.m. on 17 June, 2011 I directed that the hearing be postponed to 9 a.m. on... More
The plaintiff is the eldest daughter of the late Filmon Philemon Damasi who died on 30 March 1989 and the late Esthery Damasi who died on 5 June 1990.
First defendant is the eldest son but the youngest child to the late Filmon Philemon Damasi and Esthery Damasi.
The estate of late Filmon Philemon Damasi included an immovable property, that is, House No. 3685 Old Highfield, Harare of which he was the registered owner.
In 1989 the first defendant was appointed executor dative to the estate late Philemon Damasi and issued with letters of administration under DRH. 389/89. More
The three accused persons were denied bail in the Magistrates Court
on three counts of stock theft. Each count carries a minimum sentence of 9 years imprisonment. The presiding magistrate denied them bail on the basis that they likely to abscond. He reasoned that the strength of the state case and severity of sentence upon conviction were likely to induce them to abscond. More
: The plaintiff issued summons out of this court seeking a decree of divorce and other ancillary relief. The facts of this matter are not in dispute and may be summarized as follows. The plaintiff and defendant are husband and wife. They married in terms of the Marriages Act [Cap 5:11] on 24 August 1996. They have one minor child a little boy aged 11. In 2008 the parties separated due to marital differences. They have not lived together as husband and wife since that time. They are both certain that the marriage has broken down to such an extent... More
The plaintiff married the defendant on 23 December 2000 at Rusape in terms of the Marriages Act, [Cap 5:11]. The marriages still subsists. They had however commenced living together as husband and wife about two or three years before that date. Their union was blessed with one minor child born on 20 June 1997. At the time plaintiff and defendant started staying together plaintiff had not yet finalized his divorce from a previous marriage. More
On 11 February 2010 the plaintiffs herein issued out summons against the four defendants for payment of the sum of US$48 518-50 jointly and severally, the one paying the others to be absolved, interest on the said sum and costs of suit. Only the first and the third defendants entered appearance to defend. The first defendant then filed an exception to the summons and declaration after requesting and being furnished with further particulars. The third defendant has not filed any further pleadings. More
