In 1989 the plaintiff and defendant married each other in terms of customary law. Their marriage was however not registered. After a period of about ten years living together in the manner of husband and wife they decided to have their marriage solemnized in terms of the Marriages Act [Cap 5:11] of the Laws of Zimbabwe. Their marriage was thus solemnized on 11 February 1999 at Harare in terms of the Marriages Act. That marriage still subsists. More
The bare bones of the matter are these: The respondent issued summons against the applicant on 30 November, 2010 in case number HC 8728/10, claiming $6 369-35. The applicant entered appearance to defend via its erstwhile legal practitioners Messrs Bruce Mujeyi Manokore Attorneys. The applicant through its then legal practitioners was served with a notice to plead on 26 January, 2011. The applicant did not enter a plea and the respondent applied for default judgment on 2 March, 2011. The order was duly granted on 31 March, 2011 and issued on 28 April, 2011. More
The background to the above claim(s) is that on 13 June 2010 the defendant assaulted the plaintiff. The plaintiff lost a tooth as a result of the assault. The defendant was arrested and later convicted in court for the offence of assault. He was fined $400 or 12 months imprisonment in case of failure to pay the fine. 4 months of the sentence were suspended for 5 years on condition the defendant did not, during the period of suspension, commit any offence warranting imprisonment without the option of a fine. More
On 12 September 2011, this court, per KUDYA J, issued a provisional order in favour of the applicant, a human rights activist, who had certain items of his property seized by unnamed officials of Harare International Airport in the early hours of 10 September 2011 as he tried to board a flight enroute to a Human Rights Defenders Conference in Dublin , Republic of Ireland. More
The applicant seeks an interdict against the respondent in the following:-
“(1) The respondent be and is hereby interdicted from disposing of the applicant’s agricultural equipment in its possession per Annexure “A” to this application by public auction on 23 July 2011, or at any subsequent date except pursuant to a court order obtained from a court of competent jurisdiction.
(2) The respondent shall (bear) the costs of this application”. More
At the hearing of this matter, I dismissed the application with costs and advised that the reasons will follow later. These are they:
The applicant approached this court seeking an order that the agreement of sale entered into by Miriam Chada (Miriam) acting as Executor of the Estate late Selestino Chada be declared valid, that the second respondent be ordered to effect cession of house number 727 Glen Norah A (“the property”) into the applicant’s name and that the respondents pay costs of suit. More
This is an application for an order joining the second respondent as a party to the proceedings launched by the applicant by summons action in case No. HC 9536/11. The basis of the application is that the second respondent has a substantial interest in those proceedings and may be affected by the decision made in that matter. More
