This is an application for condonation for the late filing of an application for leave to appeal conjoined with the application for leave to appeal. The applicants have filed this application in terms of r 5 as read with r 32 of the Constitutional Court Rules, 2016 (the Rules). It is a composite chamber application for condonation and for leave to note an appeal against the decision of the Supreme Court in case number SC 107/21. More
Under case no CCZ 10/2022, the applicants applied to intervene in certain ongoing proceedings brought by the first respondent against the second and third respondents. The essence of the order sought in these ongoing proceedings is a declaration that the second respondent failed to fulfil a constitutional obligation, the precise nature of which is yet to be determined. I shall hereafter refer to these ongoing proceedings as “the main matter”.
The application for intervention was placed before me for determination. Before the hearing of the application, the applicants made an application for my recusal.
After hearing submissions from the parties... More
This is an appeal against the whole judgment of the High Court handed down on 2 July 2020 inter alia nullifying the Mashoko-Kusisa Family Trust, directing the first appellant and the third respondents to render a full account of the business operations and functions of that trust from 8 May 2006 and dismissing the claim for the eviction of the first respondent and those claiming occupation through her from the trust property known as No 1 Franco Close, Borrowdale Harare (the property). More
This is an appeal against the whole judgment of the High Court of Zimbabwe handed down on the 31 August 2021, and ordering the eviction of the appellants and all those claiming occupation through them, from a mining claim labelled Valentine 56. At the end of the hearing, the court dismissed the appeal with costs and indicated that full reasons for the judgment would follow in due course. These are they. More
This is an opposed application for the review of taxation done by the first respondent in terms of r 56(2) of the Supreme Court Rules, 2018 (“the Rules”). Essentially, the applicants contend that the first respondent acted wrongly in deciding that the second and third respondents’ legal practitioner was entitled to levy her fees using only the upper margin fee of her applicable range of fees and in allowing a fifty percent premium on the fees levied. More
This is an appeal against the whole judgment of the High Court, sitting at Harare, handed down on 29 July 2020 as judgment number HH495/20, wherein the court a quo granted a declaratory order to the effect that the appellants were no longer members of the respondent and were thus not entitled to the use of the respondent’s name and properties. More
On 13 April 2021, the applicants filed a chamber application for condonation and extension of time to appeal in terms of r 61 as read with r 43 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2018. It is opposed by the first respondent. More
