This is an urgent chamber application in terms of which first applicant seeks the following relief per provisional order:-
TERMS OF FINAL ORDER SOUGHT
That you show cause to this Honourable Court why a final order should not be made in the following terms:
1. The respondents and all those acting through them be and are hereby barred from implementing second and third respondents’ decision of the 23rd of May 2017 against the applicants and accessing the applicants’ mining area pending the finalization of the review application filed by applicants under case no. HC 5172/17. More
The applicants were on 15 September, 2016 convicted on their own plea of guilty by the Regional magistrate sitting at Kadoma on a charge of assault and another of attempted murder as defined respectively in ss 89 and 47 (1) (b) as read with (1) (a) of the Criminal Law Codification Reform Act, [Chapter 9:23]. On the first count they were each sentenced to pay a fine of $100.00 in default 3 months. On the second count, they were each sentenced to 10 years imprisonment with 2 years suspended for 5 years on condition that they did not commit a... More
This is an application in terms of Order 40 r 348A (5a) for the postponement or suspension of a sale in execution of the applicant’s dwelling house at Stand 446 Strathaven Township 2 of Strathaven A held under Deed of Transfer 319/2005. The application is opposed by the first respondent. An opposing affidavit originally filed on behalf of the first respondent on 29 November 2017 was withdrawn because it had been signed by a person other than the first respondent herself. It is not explained how a Commissioner of Oaths commissioned that affidavit. That affidavit was withdrawn and a fresh... More
On 1 February, 2010, the respondent purchased Plot number 236 which was 300 square metres through Nandi Properties who are cited as Estate Agents in the Agreement of Sale. The Agreement of Sale said the plot number was temporary and for identification purposes only and that the “Department of Physical Planning” was still working on allocating the stand numbers. More
: The applicant in this matter applied for dismissal of respondent’s application filed in case No HC2146/12 for want of prosecution in terms of order 32 r 236(3)(b) of the High Court Rules 1971. More
In 1996 the plaintiff and the defendant were married to each other in terms of customary law. Their marriage was not registered. It was basically an unregistered customary law union. More
