The applicant has approached this court primarily seeking an order setting aside the respondent’s administrative action imposing a garnishee order against the applicant’s bank account for a tax debt. It further seeks that the respondent be ordered to reimburse all the monies it garnished from applicant’s bank account as from 31 March 2016. The applicant also seeks that the respondent be ordered to lawfully and properly conduct an audit for the 2009 and 2010 financial years. More
[1] After hearing argument on a point in limine raised by the first and third respondents, this Court issued the following order:-
“1. The preliminary point raised by the respondents is upheld.
2. The matter is struck off the roll with costs.
3. The reasons for this order are to follow in due course.”
[2] What follow are the reasons for that order. More
This chamber application was placed before me curiously titled, “Chamber application for the Master’s Consent in terms of order 32, Rule 249(1) (b). The relief sought was the ‘approval’ for the sale of stand 16834 Ruwa township of Sebastopol measuring 300 square metres held under Deed no. 3534/2009. This property is currently registered in the names of the applicant and her minor child one Ryan Tafadzwa Chipere. The chamber application in its heading completely misses the mark as it is not the role of the Master of the High Court to ‘consent’ to sales of properties belonging to a minor... More
On 24 October 2017, my brother Judge, FOROMA J granted a provisional order in favour of the applicants in the following terms;
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
TERMS OF THE FINAL RELIEF
That you show cause to this Honourable Court why a final order should not be made in the following terms
1. 1st respondent be and is hereby compelled to release all documents necessary to enable applicants to exercise their right of first refusal in respect of a certain piece of land situate in the District of Salisbury measuring 9465 square metres held under deed 3351/73 otherwise known as... More
The plaintiff and the defendant were joined in holy matrimony in terms of the Marriage Act [Chapter 5:11] on 16 May 1994 at Harare and their marriage still subsists.
Their marriage was blessed with two children who are now of majority status.
The marriage relationship between the parties has hit rock bottom such that on 15 July 2015 plaintiff lodged thisaction seeking dissolution of the marriage and the distribution of the assets of the spouse in terms of the Matrimonial Cause Act, [Chapter 5:13]. More
This application was placed before me with the title “Chamber application for condonation of late noting of appeal against both conviction and sentence”. However, it was much more than that as the draft order also sought leave to prosecute appeal in person. Nonetheless, the omission of the last part from the title of the application is not fatal.
As stated by CHITAPI J in Mapfumo v The State
“For the avoidance of doubt, in terms of s 36 of the High Court Act, [Chapter 7:06], a self-acting person does not have an automatic right to prosecute his appeal in person... More
This is an application for condonation of late noting of appeal and extension of time within which to file the appeal in terms of r 31 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1964.
The parties were married but divorced in England. The court in England issued a decree nisi which the first respondent used to obtain an interdict in the local High Court. The interdict barred the applicant from dealing in the property known as No. 5 Reitfontein Close Highlands, Harare, which he claims to be his sole property. More
