The first and second defendants have made an application for the dismissal of the plaintiffs’ claims against them, on the basis that there has been an abuse of the process of the court on the part of the plaintiffs. In addition, due to the absence of a legal practitioner acting on behalf of the first, second and third plaintiffs on the date scheduled for the trial before me, it is contended that the named plaintiffs were in default of appearance, and that therefore, in the event that I am not persuaded to dismiss the claim on the first argument advanced,... More
The following facts are common cause. On 22 January 2010 the parties entered into an agreement in terms of which the applicant lent the sum of US $9 500-00 to the respondent. It was an express term of the agreement that payment would be made within seven days from the date of lending. The respondent failed to repay the lent amount within the agreed period. He then requested for an extension of time and it was agreed that he would pay back the full amount on or by 30 June 2010. The respondent signed an acknowledgement of debt in which... More
When the parties appeared before me in chambers on 27 January, 2012, I directed their legal practitioners to file heads of argument before I could make a determination on the matter. This they have done. I had discerned that the resolution of the real dispute between the parties hinged on a point of law. More
The applicant was the plaintiff in an action she instituted for divorce and the distribution of matrimonial assets between her and the respondent who was then the defendant. Her prayer for divorce was granted. More
On 10 May 2011 the defendant excepted to the citation of a non-existent entity by the plaintiff in action proceedings in the present matter.
The plaintiff issued summons out of this court on 14 January 2011 in HC 389/11 seeking US$5 364-00 in unpaid levies, interest at the prescribed rate and costs of suit. An appearance to defend was filed on 14 February 2011. Further particulars requested on 2 March were furnished on 7 April 2011. Amongst the particulars that the plaintiff declined to provide was one on the legal status of the defendant. The exception was served on the... More
The plaintiff and defendant were joined in holy matrimony in terms of the Marriages Act, [Cap 5:11] on 8 January 1988 at Harare. Their marriage subsists. Their marriage was blessed with two children who are now adults. More
In this application, the applicant seeks a declarator that she is the lawful occupier of a farm known as subdivision 1 of the remainder of Umfulia in the District of Chegutu (“the farm”), that the first respondent has no right, title or interest in the said farm and as such all those claiming through him should be barred from tilling the land and be ordered to vacate the farm. She also seeks attorney and client costs. More
