The background to the seeking of these inelegantly couched and long-winded orders is this: -
The applicant obtained a loan from the 2nd respondent which he secured by registering a mortgage bond against the immovable property described herein. The debt was not paid as per agreement and the 2nd respondent successfully obtained judgment against the applicant, which judgment declared the immovable property executable. The 3rd respondent subsequently sold the immovable property at a judicial sale and the 1st respondent was declared the highest bidder. A purported request to have the sale set aside in terms of the then rule 359... More
3. This application will be better understood against the background that follows. The applicant contends that on the 3rd April 2021, he entered into a loan agreement with respondent. He was advanced USD5 500.00 which the parties agreed would be payable on the 24 April 2021, together with interest and the total payable would turn to be USD7 150.00. According to the applicant it was agreed that he would pledge his motor vehicle a Toyota Hilux motor vehicle Registration No. AEF 6948 (vehicle), as security for the due repayment of the loan. The applicant surrendered possession of the vehicle to... More
[ 1] This application for a declaratur was on course for argument when Mr. Tivadar for the respondents made application for leave to file an additional affidavit in terms of rule 59 (12) of the High Court Rules 2021.Both counsel agreed that such application be made and opposed from the bar with heads of argument being subsequently filed by both sides to buttress submissions made. I will return to this point shortly, in the interim, the background to the dispute; - More
These are largely common cause as shown by the following sequence of events. On 29 August 2016, applicant caused summons to be issued out of this court against the respondents under case number HC 2163/16 claiming defamation damages in the sum of US$100 000-00. The respondents defended the claim and the matter progressed all the way to trial before MABHIKWA J who on 19th May 2019 upheld the applicant’s claim for damages against the 1st and 3rd respondents and awarded applicant the sum of US$16 000-00 as damages. More
1. This is an application for bail pending trial. Applicant is being charged with the crime of murder as defined in section 47(1) of the Criminal Law [Codification and Reform] Act [Chapter 9:23]. It being alleged that he fatally assaulted the (Prince Dube) deceased with a stone leading to his death. More
This matter was heard on 4 February 2020. After hearing argument from counsel, the court reserved judgment. It was intended that judgment would be availed within a reasonable period thereafter. The departure of Bere JA who had been assigned the task of drafting the judgment has resulted in an inordinate delay in determining the appeal. The delay is regretted and the court sincerely apologises to the parties for the inconvenience. More
