The appellants appeal against the whole judgment of the High Court dated 12 March 2020. The court a quo dismissed an application wherein the appellants sought a declaration of invalidity against a confirmed sale in execution of Stand No. 230 Vainona Township of Vainona (the immovable property), the consequential vacation of the sale and the resale of the immovable property by private treaty. More
The appellants in both cases averred in the court a quo that as of 4 June 2020 they were in peaceful and undisturbed possession of the property called Stand 856 Salisbury Township of Salisbury Lands, measuring 892 square meters, also known as No. 44 Nelson Mandela Avenue Harare, otherwise known as Harvest House. It is also known as Morgan Richard Tsvangirai House. The building consists of six floors all of which were occupied by officials and employees of the first appellant in HC 2811/20, a political party.
On the night of 4 June 2020 the appellants were dispossessed of these... More
In early 2000, at the height of the land reform programme, the applicants and many others moved to occupy Heydon Farm on the outskirts of Harare. They proceeded to build family homes and to engage in agricultural activities. Subsequently the whole of Heydon Farm was compulsorily acquired by the State and a notice to that effect was published in the Government Gazette in terms of the Land Acquisition Act [Chapter 20:10]. Contrary to their expectations none of the occupiers were favoured with either offer letters, permits or lease agreements which documents would have regularised their stay at Heydon Farm. Instead... More
This judgment involves two consolidated appeals from the High Court (the court a quo) being case numbers SC 258/20 and SC 285/20. The court issued a consolidation order dated 29 March 2021 by consent of the parties. Both appeals are based on the same record of proceedings and issues in the court a quo under Case No. HC 6503/19. It was therefore convenient to consolidate the two appeals because the matter was determined by the same judge a quo on the same facts and issues. The two appeals arise from the same judgement. Each appellant lodged its own appeal against... More
(3) The applicants noted an appeal to this Court against the decision of the High Court in HC 1348/21. The parties thereafter appeared before the Registrar in terms of r 55 (2), for the determination of the amount the applicants had to pay as security for the respondents’ costs. The Registrar determined the amount the applicants had to pay as the respondents’ security of costs and the period within which it was to be paid. More
This is an appeal against the whole judgment of the High Court handed down on 1 June 2020 granting an interdict in favour of the first and second respondents. More
The two appellants and the first respondent are Zimbabwean companies registered in terms of the law. The second respondent is an Arbitrator who is presiding over a dispute between the appellants and the first respondent.
RM Enterprises (Private) Limited (the second appellant) is a wholly owned subsidiary of Riozim Limited (the first appellant). On 19 January 2010 the first appellant and Maranatha Ferrochrome (Private) Limited (the first respondent) entered into a memorandum of Shareholders’ Agreement. In terms of the agreement, the first appellant was to ensure that 40 per cent of issued shares in the second appellant would be transferred... More
