On the date of the hearing applicant raised a point in limine on the locus standi of second respondent and the fact that applicant had not been served personally with the application for contempt of court that led to the default judgment.
The second respondent’s counsel on the other hand also raised a point in limine alleging that as the applicant had not attached the default judgment in question, there was no cause of action.
After counsel had made their respective submissions I indicated that they must proceed with arguments on the main matter and my decision of the points... More
On the 20thJuly 2018, the first respondent instituted legal proceedings against the applicant under HC 6771/18 where the first respondent sought an Order compelling the applicant to transfer stand 456 Prospect Township of Stand 85 of Prospect to him. According to the first respondent the parties had entered into an agreement of sale of the property and had paid the purchase price in full. On the 23rd July 2018 the first respondent allegedly served the application on one Crispen and using a certificate of service certified by a legal practitioner the first respondent applied for default judgment which was grantedby... More
This was an application for review. The second respondent was a provincial magistrate. At all relevant times she was stationed at Zaka, one of the districts in the Province of Masvingo. It was the proceedings before her in the court below that were brought on review. On 25 August 2017 she granted a rule nisi ex parte. It was a provisional order of spoliation against the applicants herein [respondents therein], in favour of the first respondent herein [applicant therein] [hereafter referred to as “Mutema”]. The alleged spoliation was in respect of certain business premises situate Nyika Growth Point, Bikita, namely... More
This is an application for bail pending appeal against conviction only. At his trial the applicant was facing three counts of rape as defined in section 65 (1) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23]. More
This is an urgent application for an order interdicting the first respondent from carrying on mining operations on the applicant’s mineral claims described in the papers as Contrica 9 Registered Number 23331BM; Contrica 21 Registered Number 24482BM; Contrica 45 Registered Number 24866BM; and Contrica 46 Registered Number 24867BM. The order also seeks the barring of the first respondent from coming within two hundred metres of the mining claims referred to above. More
This is an appeal against a judgment of the Labour Court wherein the decision to dismiss the appellant from employment that had been made by the appellant’s Managing Director was set aside whilst an earlier decision by the disciplinary committee that the respondent be issued with a second written warning was confirmed. More
The applicant is a haulage transporter. It transports:
(a) mining equipment and products;
(b) grain;
(c) cement and hardware. Its major clients comprise:
(i) manufacturers
(ii) cement producers;
(iii) non-governmental organisations – and
(iv) government departments as well as
(v) private business which includes manufacturers and traders’ products.
On 29 June 2016, the court placed the applicant under provisional judicial management. More
