Electronic Court judgements

Browse Court Judgements by year

This is an application in terms of s 85(1)(a) of the Constitution and the background to the matter is as follows: - The applicants are all citizens of, but are not resident in, Zimbabwe. They give different reasons for their absence, with the first applicant citing political reasons. The second applicant cites economic reasons while the third applicant alleges his absence is premised on economic and political reasons. The applicants state that they wish to participate in the country’s harmonized general elections due later this year, 2018, but are precluded from doing so by certain sections of the relevant law. More

This is a chamber application made in terms of r 12 of the Supreme Court Rules ,1964. The brief background to this application may be summarised as follows: The applicants are husband and wife. They approached the court a quo, by way of urgent chamber application, seeking a stay of execution and return of goods which had been removed pursuant to a writ of execution following a default judgment which was granted in favour of the second respondent. The default judgment, related to a claim by the second respondent, who was the legal practitioner for the second applicant, claiming unpaid... More

On 1 March 2018 the applicants filed a chamber application for leave for direct access to the Constitutional Court in terms of r 21(2) of the Constitutional Court Rules SI 61 of 2016 (“the Rules”). The first and second applicants are political parties represented by the third and fourth applicants respectively. The fifth applicant is a political activist. He is not a member of any of the political parties. It is not explained in the papers why the political parties were joined with him in the making of the application. More

This is a chamber application for reinstatement of appeal where the application seeks an order couched in the following terms: - More

This case raises for determination questions of the constitutionality of civil legislation’s retrospective effect. More

The applications in both files are basically for the setting aside of the first and second respondents’ decision made on the 23rd of May 2017 reconstituting the boundaries and the beacons of the applicants’ mining claims and the awarding of the parts of the applicants’ claim to the third respondent. More

On the 17th October 2017 the above two cases were consolidated and argued at the same time before us. After hearing arguments in both matters we dismissed the appeals. More